Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREAT YARMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Tuesday 20 October.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (SUSPENSION)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That so much of the Lords Message [27th July] as relates to the County of Avon Bill [Lords], and the Derbyshire Bill [Lords] be now considered. — [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [27th July] as relates to the British Railways (No. 2) Bill be now considered;

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read);

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [27th July] as relates to the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill be now considered:

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill tip to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read);

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT) PIER BILL

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [27th July] as relates to the Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) Pier Bill be now considered

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) Pier Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read);

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Interest Rates

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to achieve lower interest rates, he will now reintroduce exchange control.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): No, Sir. Exchange controls were an unnecessary administrative burden on the economy and we have no intention of reintroducing them.

Mr. Jay: Is it not now perfectly clear that the abandonment of exchange control was a reckless blunder that destroyed the chance of lower interest rates and is doing further major damage to British industry?

Mr. Rees: No, Sir. This was a highly considered move and it has been generally beneficial in its effects. It has only a marginal, if any, effect on interest rates.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is there not a better way of achieving lower interest rates? If so, what is it?

Mr. Rees: Containment of the public sector borrowing requirement.

Sir William Clark: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this country enjoys some of the lowest interest rates in Europe, and certainly below those prevailing in the United States? Does he further agree that if the Government were to indulge in massive reflation, albeit uncosted, this would mean a possible doubling, if not more, of the public sector borrowing requirement, which would lead to higher interest rates, burdens on industry, higher unemployment and higher mortgage payments?

Mr. Rees: I accept entirely my hon. Friend's perceptive analysis of the situation.

Mr. Shore: Was not the whole rationale behind the Budget to bring down interest rates and, in order to achieve it, was not a large fiscal deflation announced? What is the hon. and learned Gentleman's response now that interest rates are moving up? Can we look forward to further cuts in public expenditure and to increased taxation in order to keep interest rates at their present 12 per cent. level?

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman should await my right hon. and learned Friend's next Budget, which will be next spring.

Economic Policy

Mr. Cryer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he considers to be the main benefits so far achieved by his policies.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Inflation has been substantially reduced. This is an essential prerequisite to sustainable recovery. There are now indications that productivity is increasing.

Mr. Cryer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) saying only a short time ago that no discernible benefits were to be seen from the Government's incomprehensible

policies? If the Government's policies are so successful, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why it was necessary to introduce £500 million worth of crisis economic measures last Monday?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should describe the measures announced last Monday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as crisis economic measures. They were directed to the needs of the situation within the context of the Government's economic policy. I would expect the hon. Gentleman to pay more attention to the results of the CBI survey on business outlook published this morning. That shows greater optimism about the business situation generally, the volume of new orders, the volume of output, export prospects, export orders and export deliveries. Every relevant indicator in the survey is now positive and, in each case, the improvement has been sustained for the last 12 months.

Mr. McCrindle: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend being unduly modest in assessing the benefits of his economic policies? Does he agree that one of the principal benefits is the greater sense of realism prevailing in British industry which has led to higher productivity, lower wage settlements and fewer strikes?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It has led to all those benefits, as well as to those which I have just listed. Moreover, the number of firms expecting to destock has fallen, as has the number of firms working below capacity. I repeat that greater optimism is reflected in all the relevant indicators and is recorded as having taken place and improved throughout the past 12 months.

Mr. Cook: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the "CBI Industrial Trends Survey"? If so, has he not noted that every one of the indicators to which he referred has fallen since the last quarter and that the only way in which he can detect some improvement is in the fact that they have not fallen as much as they did in the record drop of last quarter? Is he aware that this is the eighth consecutive "CBI Industrial Trends Survey" since he took office and the eighth consecutive survey to show a further fall in output since the last one? When will he recognise the evidence from the real world that the economic consequences of his policies have been disastrous?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must be looking at a totally distorted picture of what is happening. Taking the CBI figures, one finds, for example, that optimism about export prospects was at an all-time negative high in July 1980 and that in each quarter since then the figure has been moving in the right direction, so that this quarter there is a substantial positive balance recording optimism on export prospects, orders and deliveries. Those are the facts as recorded in the survey. They are consistent with the fact that we are now at the end of the recession.

Mr. Dorrell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that all the economic forecasts show that the public sector borrowing requirement in the current financial year is likely to be significantly smaller than it was in the last financial year and that, welcome as that is, given that output is hardly rising strongly at the moment, it does not support the case for a further round of fiscal deflation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No more does it support the case for a further round of fiscal reflation. As my hon. and


learned Friend the Minister of State pointed out, the size of the PSBR is one of the main determinants of the level of interest rates. It is important to have that influence working in the right direction.

Mr. Ioan Evans: During the recess, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assess the consequences of his economic policies? He has increased direct taxation and indirect taxation and made massive cuts in public expenditure. Living standards have come down. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policies are leading to more than 3 million unemployed. That is the result of his policies.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One important feature for people to understand, which is not implicit in what the hon. Gentleman says, is that throughout the past three years there has been a substantial increase in personal living standards at the same time as there has been a significant fall in the income and profitability of companies. We need to see a sustained reduction in the share of national output going to inflation and a sustained growth in the share of national output going to real growth in output, to real profitability and to more investment.

Economic Prospects

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reassessment of economic prospects he has made since his last Budget.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The economic situation and prospects are kept under continuous review. In line with previous practice, an economic forecast will be published in the autumn.

Mr. Woolmer: Do not Treasury estimates indicate that an upturn is months and months away into 1982 and that unemployment will increase for many more months yet? Is not this even worse than was expected at the time of the formulation of the Budget? In the light of this week's £500 million package, which is a very modest measure, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that he has no intention of clawing that back through higher taxes?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The next forecast will be published, as is customary, in the autumn, and it will be the second forecast of the year. The rate at which unemployment is growing is falling sharply, and that has been the pattern for some time. No one has sought to conceal the fact that unemployment is likely to be on a rising trend for some time to come. The worst possible way to deal with that would be to embark now on an outburst of reflation. It is crucial to maintain the budgetary balance in a sensible fashion so that borrowing can be controlled effectively if interest rates and, thus, inflation are to come down.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Looking back at the Financial Statement published in the Red Book with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last Budget, may I ask whether he still stands by the implied scope for tax reductions for next year and the year after published in table 8 of that booklet? Is the degree of funding of Government borrowing in recent months in line with the financial strategy at the time of the Budget?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Red Book published at the time of the Budget indicated the likely scope for tax changes in the years beyond that with which it was

dealing. We shall be able to address ourselves to the tax prospects in the next financial year when we come to the next Budget, which will be in the spring of 1982.
I am glad to say that the funding programme has been proceeding quite successfully. A further change in the pattern of that programme has been announced today. From 7 September, the index-linked savings certificate will be available to everyone regardless of age, so that the familiar nickname of "Granny Bond" can now decently be laid to rest. We shall make available a bond of that kind to every member of the family. At the same time, we are increasing this year's target for national savings from £3 billion to £3½ billion.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that however much we want his policies to succeed—and we believe that they are moving in the right direction—industry must be prepared to accept that it will take much longer for the unemployment level to be reduced because of the present lead time of only 70 per cent. industrial production for most companies, and that the public, too, must begin to accept this situation? The sooner that we get that across, the better it will be for everyone.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The central point to which my hon. Friend draws attention is that the rate at which recovery proceeds depends to a great extent on the reaction of people within the economy. The most effective way to secure an improvement in the prospects for employment as well as in the prospects for inflation is to have continued moderation and realism in pay settlements and management arid industrial practice generally. It is significant that there has been a reduction not only in the number of firms expecting to destock but in the number of fims working below capacity.

Mr. Straw: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman square his extraordinary, wild claim that the end of the recession is in sight with the bleak message for the Government in today's Financial Times showing that 22 forecasts of the economy predict an even steeper decline this year than the Treasury was predicting only a short time ago and with the "CBI Industrial Trends Survey" which says:
There is no evidence of any substantial recovery"?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Before dealing with the less than wholly enthusiastic question put to me by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), may I welcome him back to the House after his period of illness and say that we are all glad to see him in good order again?
Of course, there are variations in the forecasts, but undoubtedly they are all looking forward to a growth in output next year. If the hon. Gentleman looks closely at the results of the CBI survey, he will see that it shows that the great majority of the indicators are moving in the right direction.
I add one other feature. The success of the economy and its performance depends not on the analysis of this or that set of entrails but on the extent to which people in the economy react sensibly to the reality of the economic conditions in which they live. That requires continued maintenance of realism and continued moderation in pay settlements. Given that, we shall all be doing a great deal better.

Mr. Whitney: Given the importance of the financial targets to my right hon. and learned Friend's economic


policies and bearing in mind a recent Treasury statement that since 1972 the nationalised industries' return on capital has never significantly exceeded zero, will he comment on reports in today's press that the Treasury is preparing to be more flexible about nationalised industry borrowing? Is it not likely that the resources involved would be used to better effect in the private sector?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In general, resources are more likely to be used successfully if they are directed to profitable activities, and the private sector has the characteristic of allocating resources by reference to the outlook for profits. My hon. Friend is right to make that central point. One other factor is that if we have nationalised industry prospects in line with, for example, London Transport, where it is proposed to reduce fares dramatically and to increase pay substantially, that must diminish the prospects for sensible capital investment, which is what the House wants. We can achieve better capital investment programmes by more sensible management of the pattern of pay and prices in nationalised industries.

Inflation and Interest Rates

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely trends on inflation and interest rates over the next year.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): We do not publish forecasts of interest rates. With regard to inflation, the Financial Statement and Budget Report contained a forecast of 10 per cent. for the fourth quarter of 1981 and 8 per cent. for the second quarter of 1982. There is no reason to offer a new assessment at this stage.

Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best service that we can give the unemployed is to ensure that inflation and interest rates are as low as possible when the recovery comes? Does he also agree that the best service that we can give our children and grandchildren is to ensure that as low a proportion as possible of the PSBR is funded by index-linked bonds or savings certificates?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. Friend's first proposition, but I cannot entirely agree with the second.

Mr. Newens: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman confident that the Government will resist the pressures that are afoot for a rise in interest rates, bearing in mind the tremendous damage that it would do not only to industry but to home owners and many others? Does he believe that that can be done without further cuts in public expenditure? What prospects does he see for a reduction in interest rates, which everyone accepts is essential for real recovery?

Mr. Brittan: As I have already said, we cannot predict interest rates. Our desire and policy to have lower interest rates have been made clear many times, and the action that we have taken to lower interest rates speaks louder than any words that we can utter. At the same time, however, it would be foolish to pretend that we can totally insulate ourselves from all the influences that may be brought to bear.

Mr. Budgen: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the decision to allow everyone to buy inflation-proofed bonds will be regretted in many quarters? In that it diminishes the pain of inflation, will it not also diminish the popular will to fight inflation and make borrowing more expensive and difficult for private borrowers who cannot offer the same advantages as the State offers when it lends?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend may be under a slight misapprehension because of the nature of the announcement. We are talking about national savings certificates, not bonds. Therefore, some of what my hon. Friend said may not apply.

Mr. Shore: May I come back to the trend in interest rates since the time of the Budget? We were informed at that time that MLR was 12 per cent. and that there would be further falls. Has the Chief Secretary noticed that the three-month interbank rate and other indicators are already over 14 per cent.? Effectively, therefore, interest rates are going up. Surely, the Bank of England has intervened to guide the market in that direction. How does that square with the forecast that was given at the time of the Budget, and what is the Government's attitude to the rise in interest rates?

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not the practice to comment on the day-to-day operations of the Bank of England. He also knows that the level of interest rates in this country compares extremely favourably with those in other countries. He knows, too, that it does not lie in his mouth to make criticisms about interest rates, because the policies that he has consistently put forward to the House would lead either to a massive increase in interest rates or to a massive growth in inflation, or probably both.

Economic Recovery (Measurement)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he uses to measure any recovery in manufacturing and total output in the economy.

Mr. Brittan: A wide variety and range of indicators and assessments, both official and independent, are regularly published. These include the index of manufacturing production, CBI surveys and the Central Statistical Office's cyclical indicators. Collectively, these indicate that the worst of the recession is behind us.

Mr. Dykes: We all hope for an upturn in the economy as soon as possible. However, if that does not happen in the foreseeable future, does my right hon. and learned Friend know of any measures that could be taken to revive the economy in a non-inflationary way?

Mr. Brittan: It is not possible to answer a hypothetical question of that nature. If the outcome of events is less favourable than we anticipate—the reasons for and the circumstances in which that could happen are infinitely various—the appropriate reaction would depend on why the circumstances had changed.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Chief Secretary aware that in the real world of continuous redundancies, closures and bankruptcies resulting from Government policies, once prosperous industrial areas, such as the West Midlands, are becoming industrial wastelands? Why does the Chief Secretary not face the real world instead of living in a world which simply does not exist?

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman is as interested in the real world as he purports to be, he should have a word with the West Midlands county council about the effect on industry of the rate increases that it has just introduced.

Public Sector Assets (Sales)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total figure for sales of public sector assets in 1980 and in 1979.

Mr. Peter Rees: Special sales of assets totalled £999 million in 1979–80, and £356 million in 1980–81.

Mr. Winterton: The latter figure is most welcome, but is it not a low figure, bearing in mind that we promised that when we came to power we would privatise much of the public sector? Bearing in mind the part that the private sector plays in wealth creation, and in view of the fact that the Government have handed out huge sums to the public sector which creates little or no wealth, will my hon. and learned Friend speed up privatisation and hand over to the people who claim that the Government owe them a living the responsibility for making that living by making them buy a stake in their industries?

Mr. Rees: The Government recognise the crucial role of the private sector. I understand my hon. Friend's impatience, but the timing of sales must inevitably depend on market conditions, and the special asset sales are part of a continuing programme that the Government will continue to implement.

Mr. Hooley: Is it the Government's policy that when a public corporation has been outstandingly successful, both financially and technologically, as with British Gas, the assets are to be thieved and sold off to private interests?

Mr. Rees: That matter was adequately canvassed in the debate that we had a few nights ago. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that deeper considerations are involved. The sale of public sector assets will contribute to reducing the PSBR and, therefore, to keeping down interest rates, which is clearly a concern of the Opposition.

Inflation

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of inflation on 1 July.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Movements in the retail prices index are calculated from the middle of each month. The latest figure available is that for mid-June, when the increase over the previous 12 months was 11·3 per cent.

Mr. Cox: I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. Is he aware that we are again on the prices increase spiral? Why should working people accept lower wage increases when all round them they see the prices of the essential commodities of life—gas, electricity and rents—being increased and the Government doing nothing to impose any control? When will the standard of living of working people be increased under this Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The rate of inflation has fallen substantially from what it was 12 months ago. It is true that the reduction has taken place more dramatically in those areas where prices compete in the high street than in those provided by the nationalised industries. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect this Government—indeed, any

Government—to guarantee rising living standards for people generally until we improve our economic performance, and a crucial part of that performance depends on lower pay settlements if employment is to increase again.

Mr. Forman: Is it not essential that the economic revival, when it comes, should be based on much lower rates of inflation? Is it not equally essential that those lower rates of inflation should be achieved by some sort of pay policy? Will my right hon. and learned Friend look again at the possibility of a six-month wages freeze from this autumn?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confess that having been directly responsible for the implementation of the six-month wages freeze by the previous Conservative Government, and having observed the experience of the Labour Government when they tried a similar policy, I have no confidence that an institutionalised incomes policy is the right answer to our problems. That does not mean that I underestimate the importance of continued progress towards more sensible, lower, general average pay settlements. Nothing could do more to reduce the danger of unemployment and improve the economy's general prospects than more sense in that respect. In that sense I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, but in no other.

Mr. Ennals: Based on the Treasury forecast, the Secretary of State for Social Services estimated that there would be a 10 per cent. inflation rate in November. That is the basis of the uprating. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe that, with all the signs that the inflation rate will go up, there can be a 10 per cent. inflation rate, based either on the RPI or on the retail and taxes index, by November this year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That forecast still stands. It is far too early to conclude that it will be impossible to achieve it. The right hon. Gentleman might remember that the inflation forecast last year was significantly too gloomy. I see no reason to make any change at this stage.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government's policy for reducing inflation has been highly successful? Does he further agree that private and public sector prices make up the 11.3 per cent. inflation rate but that in the private sector the increase is about 6 per cent. whereas in the public sector it is about 18 per cent? Does that not mean that we should try to accelerate privatisation? Must we wait for market conditions to be right? Why can we not issue convertible loan stock?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That concerns a much wider range of possibilities. I agree that probably the central, single most important problem for our economy is the extent to which its performance is inhibited by the dominance of publicly owned monopolies face to face in many cases with monopolistic trade unions. That makes every possible case for proceeding with privatisation as far and as fast as we sensibly can, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Income Tax (Elderly Persons)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a woman aged between 60 and 64 years who, as a result of receiving a State pension and a


graduated pension of 33 pence per week or over, becomes liable for tax at a rate over 33 pence per week need not draw the graduated pension and will not then be taxed.

Mr. Peter Rees: Any part of a pension that a pensioner has voluntarily relinquished does not form part of her total income for tax purposes. Because of the Inland Revenue's assessing tolerance, no assessment will be made for 1981–82 where, following any relinquishment, the total income for tax purposes of a woman aged between 60 and 64 whose only income is a State pension including any graduated pension does not exceed £1,475.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister aware of the increasing hardship caused to the low paid as a result of not increasing the tax threshold, and of the total chaos that he has caused to people between the ages of 60 and 65 on pensions? Will he rethink his policy inmediately and at least raise the tax threshold for such groups, with pensioners by perhaps extending the age allowance to those between the ages of 60 and 65?

Mr. Rees: I am sure that in general terms the hon. Gentleman, in making those points, will support the Government in their move to open the way to future tax reductions in subsequent Budgets. As to the question of an age allowance for women between the ages of 60 and 64, the suggestion has been considered and rejected by successive Governments of both parties. Age allowance is given in recognition of the reduced taxable capacity that comes in old age. It is not in any true sense an allowance for retirement.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: If we are to have one nation in benefit, should not everybody be encouraged to draw the benefit to which they are entitled by right of citizenship? And, if we are to have one nation in taxation, should we not encourage everybody to make his contribution even if it is only two mites?

Mr. Rees: I am certainly not encouraging pensioners in that situation to relinquish their pension. I am merely directing my remarks to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). Of course, it is not just a question of pensions, but of a pensioner who has any alternative source of income, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises.

Mr. Cook: Will the Minister clarify how he reconciles the taxation of this group of pensioners with the election pledge of his Prime Minister that her income tax proposals would result in those pensioners who had another little pension of their own paying less in tax? Is 33p a week too much pension to come within the scope of that pledge? Does not the Minister appreciate the insanity of an arrangement by which we bring into the tax net 50,000 pensioners who are each so poor that they will all be entitled to go to the DHSS and claim supplementary pension to pay the tax bill that he is about to send them?

Mr. Rees: Of course, we regret that we were unable to valorise the threshold this year. The House will recall the considerable increase in the threshold in the first year of this Administration's life. The increases did not receive the full-hearted support of the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member.

Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise (Costs)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total administrative

costs in the current financial year of the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Department, respectively; and how those figures compare with the financial year 1976–77.

Mr. Peter Rees: The total administrative costs of the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise for 1981–82 are estimated at £792 million and £339 million, respectively. These compare with £452 million and £191 million for 1976–77.

Mr. Chapman: Have the cost-yield ratios of collecting taxes changed significantly in any way in the last five years? To be more specific, is the average cost of collecting taxes by the Inland Revenue still under 2 per cent.? Is the average cost for collection by the Customs and Excise still under 1½ per cent.?

Mr. Rees: The Inland Revenue cost of collection remains in the range of 1·9 per cent. to 2 per cent. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the cost for the Customs and Excise has fallen from 1·76 per cent. to 1·3 per cent., which demonstrates that both Departments are using their resources more effectively.

Mr. Grieve: Will my hon. and learned Friend consider the fact that administrative costs might be reduced by the adoption of the American practice of self-assessment?

Mr. Rees: That is an interesting development which, naturally, this Government have considered and will continue to consider. It is not a simple matter, as my hon. and learned Friend will recognise. It would demand a considerable recasting of the tax system. It might also demand rather more prompt payment of tax by taxpayers. If the American system were adopted, it might also involve stiffer penalties.

Families (Tax Allowances)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will alter the system of tax allowance in favour of families with children where one parent only is in work.

Mr. Peter Rees: This is one of the possibilities considered in the Green Paper on the taxation of husband and wife, which was published last year.

Mr. Marlow: As the only reason why we have a higher rate of unemployment than other Western countries is that a far larger proportion of our womenfolk are in the labour market, and as the main reason why we have more violence on our streets and football hooligans is that mum has a tendency, much greater in this country than other countries, to go out to work, would it not be sensible to convert our taxation system in such a way as to encourage at least one parent to stay at home and look after their young children?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend will be able to develop that point forcefully when the Government consider the various representations on the Green Paper.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the majority of women who go out to work do so out of economic necessity or to repay society for taking some form of professional education?

Mr. Rees: That is one of the factors that must be balanced against the point made so forcefully by my hon.


Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). It demonstrates clearly that the solution to our fiscal problems involves a whole range of social and economic factors that cannot be readily or quickly resolved without a full-scale examination of the Green Paper and the representations about it.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree that the suggestion by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that rioting is due to mothers going out to work is a slur on dedicated mothers who need to go out to work to help the family? Is not the truth behind the rioting the Government's rotten economic policies that are causing deprivation and unemployment in our inner cities?

Mr. Rees: I do not think that the tendency for mothers to go out to work started with this Administration. The hon. Gentleman is opening a debate on social trends that goes far wider than the Green Paper which is the subject of the original question.

Unemployment

Mr. Hooley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the total cost in 1981–82 of unemployment benefit, special schemes for jobless boys and girls, employment subsidies in industry and other related expenditure, in the light of the rising trend of unemployment.

Mr. Brittan: The current estimate for the cost in 1981–82 of unemployment benefit is £2,004 million. The total cost in 1981–82 of all special employment and training measures is estimated at £1,100 million. Of this total, some £490 million is for schemes specially designed for young people.

Mr. Hooley: Would not it be more sensible to employ that money in expanding the housing programme, on capital expenditure in the public sector generally, by giving a boost to the National Enterprise Board and on investment in public industry? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that would have the effect of not simply reducing unemployment benefit but of both providing a greater revenue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and reducing the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he is referring to a direct effect on the unemployment figures, there is no doubt that the special measures have a more direct and substantial effect on the number of jobs in relation to the amount of money spent. If he is talking about a general reflation of the sort that appears to be foreshadowed, the objections are that that would fuel inflation and lead to higher interest rates. It would not achieve the results that the hon. Gentleman favours.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In view of the vast figure for unemployment benefit that the Chief Secretary has given to the House, are the Government reconsidering the present system whereby the whole increase in the cost of unemployment benefit is borne by even higher contributions from those still in employment and their hard-pressed employers?

Mr. Brittan: I am not quite sure whether behind that question the hon. Gentleman has some alternative that he wishes the Government to consider. If he does, I shall be happy to consider it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend admit that the amount of money spent on unemployment benefit and the special schemes announced by the Government is wasteful? Would not it be better to pump that money, one way or another, into capital projects that would provide meaningful work, which in turn would create genuine wealth? Will he give some consideration to the concern felt by industry about the rapid rise in energy prices, especially oil prices, that will have a further adverse effect on unemployment?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend must decide whether he is asking that the same amount of money be spent on his proposal or that more public money should be spent. If he is asking that the same amount should be spent for different purposes, he must accept that fewer jobs would be produced. If he is asking for a higher total of public money to be spent, he must accept the consequences on interest rates and inflation.

Mr. Shore: I am sure that the Chief Secretary does not wish to mislead the House. Was not he asked what was the total cost of unemployment benefits and other matters? He gave the House the figure for unemployment benefit but not for supplementary benefit paid to the unemployed, which is an equal sum. It is another £2,000 million.
Is it not remarkable that he should have omitted that figure from his reply? The figures do not include the loss of income tax and national insurance contributions that the unemployed would make if they were in employment. Are we not talking not of £3,000 million but of at least £6,000 million, and more probably £7,000 million? The Opposition believe that that money could be put to a more useful purpose if more of our people were back of work.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman was incorrect to suggest that there has been any misleading of the House. If he cares to look at the question and answer later, he will find that he was wrong. He is operating under a fallacy in suggesting that employment can be switched on and off like a tap and that the money that is currently spent on the sort of measures that I have described can be simply diverted instantly into productive employment without any consequences on inflation and interest rates. If it were as easy as that, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that any Government would have resorted to that simple solution. The problems are very much monk: complex than he is prepared to admit.

£ Sterling

Mr. Dubs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present purchasing power of £ sterling compared with May 1979.

Mr. Brittan: The purchasing power of the £ sterling was 73p in June 1981 compared with 100p in May 1979.

Mr. Dubs: Is not that figure an appalling indictment of the Government's economic policies? Have not they consistently said that the main aim of their economic policy was to reduce the rate of inflation? Given that there is no sign that inflation will fall during the next two years, coupled with an increase in unemployment, is it not time that the Government changed the course of their economic policies?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of those figures. As he knows perfectly well,


the rate of inflation during the past year has been halved. A figure that is not often quoted, but which provides a fair comparison of the Government's record with that of their predecessors, is that, whereas during the past year inflation has been halved, in the year up to May 1979 inflation rose by 37 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Eggar: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having meetings later today with the Prime Ministers of Australia and Guyana. This evening I am giving a dinner for a number of visiting Heads of State and Government.

Mr. Eggar: When my right hon. Friend considers what legislation should be introduced during the next Session of Parliament, will she confirm that she will give top priority to improving the efficiency of the nationalised industries by limiting their monopoly powers and by the introduction of private capital? Will she confirm that we are looking forward to the privatisation of BNOC and the National Bus Company? Will she further confirm that British Gas will have its monopoly right of gas purchase removed and that it will play only a limited part in the gas-gathering pipeline?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I share his view that it is important to go as far as we can and as soon as possible in de-monopolising the powers of nationalised industries and introducing competition. A number of Bills are jostling for a place in the next Session. I confirm that it has already been announced that there will be a Bill enabling there to be an equity stake in BNOC. I hope that we shall introduce some legislation for gas appliances. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that without anticipating the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Beith: When the Prime Minister put forward her scheme for subsidising the employment of youngsters, did she consider the fact that in many wages council industries many 17-year-olds are paid slightly more than £40 a week, and also the possibility that the scheme might fall foul of the European Community? Does she really intend to go ahead with the scheme for subsidising low wages?

The Prime Minister: The scheme will go ahead. The hon. Gentleman may recollect that that point was brought up during the debate. I said that wages councils would have to take that into account in their future bargaining procedures. If their wages for 16 and 17-year-olds are higher than the £40 minimum, it is painfully clear that those youngsters will not be able to take advantage of the scheme. We must decide whether we want more youngsters to have jobs with lower wages or fewer youngsters to have jobs with higher wages.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister accept the claim made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his policies have, to date, been an unqualified success? If so, does she expect him to retain his job for the next 12 months, or is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the next person for the chop?

The Prime Minister: The policies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have succeeded in introducing an air of competitiveness into British industry and also an increase in productivity, from which the hon. Gentleman's Government flinched. Had that been done during the past 20 years, and had overmanning been reduced, Britain would be in a stronger position now.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend try to dig out from the Opposition some support for pay settlements during the forthcoming year that are below those accepted by the nurses and ambulance men? Will she add to the acceptability of far lower and more realistic pay settlements through an increase in child benefit so that those on low pay will have more money in their pockets, which would help the inflationary trends in the economy?

The Prime Minister: I would very much like to do what my hon. Friend suggests. It is important to keep pay settlements low for next year, unless increased pay is earned by increased productivity. That is always the way to achieve increased pay. That path is perpetually open.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Will the right hon. Lady take time off today to study the recent remarks of the director-general of the Federation of Building Trade Employers? He said that 360,000 people in the building trade are unemployed and that the situation in the industry is continuing to deteriorate rather than levelling out. Does not the right hon. Lady think that the time is opportune to announce a substantial building programmme and to increase the building programme in the public sector, including the building of more council houses, to help the industry out of its present severe recession?

The Prime Minister: This question came up at our last Question Time on Tuesday afternoon. I said on that occasion that the Government had taken certain measures to try to increase building. We have increased the tax allowance that is available for commercial and industrial buildings. That was meant directly to help the building industry. We have reduced the development land tax. That is another measure directed towards helping the building industry. Many of us would very much like to allocate a greater proportion of Government expenditure to capital spending. That would mean allocating a smaller proportion to current spending. Unless we have that side of the equation, we shall not be able to do what the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stanbrook: As having property of one's own is one of the great stabilising factors of our democratic society and needs to be encouraged, especially in the urban areas that have suffered civil disturbances, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will press on with their programme of encouraging council tenants to buy their own homes and resist any obstruction by Labour councils to try to prevent tenants exercising their legal rights?

The Prime Minister: I agree that we want as many people as possible to have personal property of their own. The first step towards that is the ownership of one's home.


About 250,000 people have applied under our legislation to purchase their own council houses. Some of the authorities that were not making very rapid progress are making much faster progress following the inquiries of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I can confirm that we shall not allow tenants to be denied their legal rights in purchasing their own homes.

Mr. Heffer: When is the Secretary of State for the Environment likely to make a statement on his visit to Liverpool? I understand that he will not be able to make a statement to the House before the recess. Will the right hon. Lady say whether we shall hear some positive proposals from the right hon. Gentleman in the near future? We need a programme that will get youngsters to work, that will clear the sites and provide training in the area, a programme that will lead to better housing and education facilities and that will help local authorities, not by rate support grant cuts but by providing greater financial aid to enable them to assist areas such as Toxteth.

The Prime Minister: I cannot say when such a report will be ready. I am convinced that it will be a thorough document when my right hon. Friend presents it to the House. The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of problems, such as education expenditure. He will know that a considerable sum has been spent on education in Liverpool. Money has been spent on new schools, and some of them are not full and will not be full because the demographic pattern has changed. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we used to put extra money into providing extra teachers in deprived areas. That was done in my time. I understand that about 190 of the 330 schools in Liverpool are benefiting from that legislation. We provided extra teachers in deprived areas and gave them extra pay. We have put a good deal of money into Liverpool. I am not certain whether it has ever been properly applied or properly co-ordinated. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is appalling how much dereliction has been allowed to stay in Liverpool without being cleared.

Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend dissociate herself from the outrageous remarks of the chairman of the Merseyside police committee, who, by justifying the continued rioting, is undermining the morale of the Merseyside police force, the members of which are trying to do their job of maintaining law and order in spite of the sniping by the chairman of their own police committee?

The Prime Minister: I read the reports to which my hon. Friend refers. There can be no excuse for the violence that we have seen, and those who suggest otherwise from positions of authority bear a terrible responsibility for their remarks.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the courtesies of the House but I cannot allow the slur of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) to pass. Lady Simey—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. That is part of the debate.

Mr. English: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order that the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise. The Prime Minister is

responsible for her statements as everybody else is responsible for theirs. It is not a point of order for me to deal with.

Later—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member, who is experienced, will not try to pursue an argument about a reply that was given. If he has a point of order connected with Standing Orders or the customs of the House, I shall take it. However, I shall look poorly on something that is not a point of order.

Mr. English: I believe that there is a custom in this privileged place that if a person is attacked there should be at least one simple sentence in defence—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in my time in the House.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement that you have made, Mr. Speaker, could you explain how someone such as Lady Simey, a respected member of the Labour Party, who has been a member of the Labour Party since she was a young girl, who is now 75 years of age, is experienced and whose record on Merseyside is well known, could have some right of replying to the points that were made to her? [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheating."]

Mr. Speaker: I do not like that word to be used, because it is not fair. The hon. Member was trying to put in a point of order something to which I listened with great care, but the hon. Gentleman will know that this is not the first time that a person outside the House has been criticised, and that is part of the privilege of speech in this House.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You asked me to refer myself to the customs of Parliament, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that hitherto attacks on Members of the other House, their wives or their widows have not been permitted, unless formally?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is right about attacks upon Members of another place. Until the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke, I did not know who was the person involved. I deal with everyone on the same basis. If the person is a member of another place— [HON. MEMBERS: "She is not."] I suggest that we move on.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 30 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dubs: Is the package of employment measures announced by the right hon. Lady a few days ago to be regarded as a sign of the success or failure of the Government's policies?

The Prime Minister: Had the hon. Gentleman listened to the debate, he would have heard the argument that overmanning has gone on in British industry for years. It is essential to have demanning to get industries competitive. That inevitably means that in the shorter run we shall have some increase in unemployment. We cannot leave the position as it is. Therefore, we are taking steps to try to relieve the worst of the hardship. That seems an excellent strategy and a humane way in which to tackle the problem.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: In view of the distress in Poland, will my right hon. Friend consider today what more could be done to bring the surpluses of free enterprise agriculture to the relief of the victims of Socialism?

The Prime Minister: The countries of the European Community, both separately and jointly, have been doing all that they can to make food available to Poland by sending food there and by extending credit facilities. It is important that we continue to do so. The time must come when improved production in Poland takes over.

Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Lady is taking credit for her achievements, will she tell us which of her achievements gives her the greatest source of satisfaction? Is it the record 7 per cent. fall in output, or the record 20 per cent. fall in manufacturing production? Is it the achievement of a record level of unemployment of 2·85 million? Is it the record rate of increase in unemployment or is it the record loss of international competitiveness of 35 per cent. in two years, something quite unprecedented over previous years? Is it the rise in prices of 35 per cent. over two years of inflation, is it the increase in the tax burden of 10 per cent. in two years, or is it the rise in the income tax burden for everyone except the very rich?

Sir William Clark: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is asking a question.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady state her priority? Does she wish to take credit for the record number of bankruptcies? Will she tell us which achievement she puts in position No. 1?

The Prime Minister: The guts to tackle the problems from which the right hon. Gentleman has flinched.

Mr. Foot: I shall seek to send away the right hon. Lady in a good mood. All of us were gratified about the event yesterday, but all of us know that the Government had nothing to do with it. No doubt that is the reason for its success. We wish that our finances could be run in the same way. We should like this information to be broadcast throughout the world. The Government had nothing to do with it, and, therefore, it was a great success.

The Prime Minister: If that is all that the right hon. Gentleman has to say, why does he say it?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Business Questions.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There were interruptions during Prime Minister's Questions regarding a point of order. Should you not have allowed a certain time after Prime Minister's Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry for the hon. Member, but only seconds were taken up by that point of order.

Sir William Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that it is the custom in this House to let the Leader of the Opposition have a certain amount of licence, but I am sure that today every Back Bencher and possibly many Front Benchers have felt that that privilege has been highly abused. I am convinced that if an ordinary Back Bencher had attempted to do a similar thing, he would soon have been stopped.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is probably correct in his last comment, but, as I have said many times, the Leader of the Opposition is allowed extra latitude. The Leader of the Opposition, whoever it may be, always bears that in mind.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the week after the recess?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Adjournment is expected to be as follows:
MONDAY 19 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER —Remaining stages of the Companies (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords messages which may be received.
Motion relating to the Hereford and Worcester Trial Area Order.
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords messages which may be received.
Motion relating to the Education (Scotland) Lothian Regional Council's Transfer Scheme 1980.
FRIDAY 23 OCTOBER—Proceedings on the following four consolidation measures: Acquisition of Land Bill [Lords]; Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Bill [Lords]; New Towns Bill [Lords]; Trustee Savings Bank Bill [Lords].
Motions on European Community documents 9361/80 on micro-electronic technology, 5682/80 on marketing and use of certain dangerous substances, and 9953/80 on protection of workers from asbestos.
It is expected, Mr. Speaker, that the new Session will be opened on Wednesday 4 November.
[The following reports of the European Legislation Committee are relevant to the debates on European Community documents on Friday 23 October:
Micro-electronic technology: 25th report, 1980–81, HC 32-xxv para. 3.
Asbestos: 38th report, 1979–80, HC 159–xxxviii, para. 1; 8th report, 1980–81, HC 32-viii para. 1; 23rd report, 1980–81, HC 32-xxiii para. 6; 25th report, 1980–81, HC-32-xxv para. 2.]

Mr. Foot: I shall put four matters to the right hon. Gentleman, some of which I have raised with him before. One is the question of the incidents in Brixton of a week or two ago. Will there be a statement before we rise? The matter has caused considerable concern. I intimated to the right hon. Gentleman last week that we should have a statement before the House departed.
Secondly, we had exchanges about the Vale of Belvoir last week. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us absolute confirmation that the statement should be made in the House and that we should have a decision in the House. We do not want an announcement made during the recess which binds us in any way. I do not need to stress how strong the feeling is in the Opposition about the importance of the matter for the country as a whole.
Thirdly, there; is the question of the BBC external services. There was a debate at a late hour on the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman has studied the reports of that debate, as I am sure he must have done, he will realise how strong is the feeling on that subject, too. Can he give us an assurance that no cuts will be imposed before the House of Commons can decide the matter by its own vote?
Finally, I come to the question of unemployment, which is the greatest domestic issue facing the country.
The next unemployment figures will be announced on 25 August and 22 September. It seems probable that those figures will be moving towards the 3 million mark by 25 August. With the House departing this week, I give the Leader of the House notice that we shall look at those figures and that we shall make our representations to the Government at the time. It is probable that the proper way for the House to deal with the matter would be for it to be recalled to discuss the figures.

Mr. Pym: With regard to the events in Brixton and the inquiry instituted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend is not yet able to make a statement. When he can make a statements he will do so publicly if the House has risen. As the Leader of the Opposition will no doubt be aware, the Home Secretary has spoken to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) today. They have discussed the position, which is understood between the two sides.
I am not able to add anything to what I said last week about the Vale of Belvoir. The right hon. Gentleman said that the decision should be made in the House. That will not happen before we rise tomorrow, for the simple reason that my right hon. Friend has not yet reached a decision. As he has been otherwise engaged, as everyone knows, for the last week, it is not surprising that he has made no further progress on the matter of the Vale of Belvoir. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if my right hon. Friend comes to a conclusion during the Summer Recess it may be appropriate for him to make a public announcement about it. Indeed, it might be wrong if he did not. I am not saying that my right hon. Friend will make a statement in the recess; I am simply saying that if he reaches a conclusion in the recess it may be appropriate for him to make a public announcement then.
I do not think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he wants about the BBC external services. The Government have taken a policy decision. However, I said that I would take into account the views expressed in the House when we debated the matter. The debate took place last week, and various views were expressed—hostile views as well as views in support of the Government. We shall take into account those views as well as the views that will be expressed in a debate in another place today. I cannot give an absolute undertaking that the matter will be put to the House of Commons for a decision. That is not a normal procedure. However, we shall take into account the views that have been expressed.
Finally, on the important matter of unemployment—I agree that it is important—again, I cannot promise a debate in Government time in the overspill. We had a debate in Government time on Monday, arising, I know, out of the censure motion put down by the Leader of the Opposition. We have had a couple of debates in recent months in Government time, apart from debates in time provided by the Opposition. I cannot give an undertaking, but when we return after the recess we shall review the situation through the usual channels. I do not think that it would be right to give an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Foot: We shall wait for the announcement on unemployment—the most important matter of all.
As for the BBC external services and the Vale of Belvoir, it is incorrect for the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is not normal for the House of Commons to decide


such matters by a vote. The way in which this place works is that, if the Opposition wish, they have a chance to table these matters to be settled by a vote. We want the opportunity to do that before action is taken on either matter. In saying that, we are representing the views not merely of the Opposition but of Conservative Members, and we are certainly representing widespread opinion throughout the country—the widespread opinion of anyone who has taken any notice of what has happened to the external services. Anyone who imagines that the Vale of Belvoir does not command great public interest is making a big mistake.
The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone how dispositions are made in the House. They are made so that the Opposition have time to put down such matters. The normal procedure is that we should have the chance to settle matters that we regard as important by a vote before action is taken on them.

Mr. Pym: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the Opposition having an opportunity to put down a motion on which the House can vote. That is undoubtedly an opportunity that is available to the Opposition and, if the right hon. Gentleman decides to take it, it is entirely a matter for him. I was responding on the basis that he was asking me to provide Government time for a debate, and I was not willing to give such an undertaking. If he chooses to use some of his time on that basis, that is a matter for him.

Mr. A. J. Beith: What are all the Bills that the Prime Minister says are jostling for a place in the parliamentary timetable? Have not the Government legislated enough? Have they come to believe that old fallacy that extensive legislation cures national ills?

Mr. Pym: We must await the contents of the Queen's Speech. There is a strange desire in some quarters for Bills to be produced, and a remarkable degree of resistance in other quarters by those in favour of fewer Bills.

Mr. Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend consider, if not next week, at least before he makes his next Business Statement, that Conservative Back Benchers—indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House—are strongly in favour of decreased, rather than increased, legislation? He would become a famous Leader of the House if he could arrange for a Queen's Speech announcing very little legislation.

Mr. Pym: I should like that myself. I managed to reduce the legislative programme this Session, and I think that hon. Members have been somewhat appreciative. I shall not turn over a new leaf on that; I shall stay on the leaf that I am already on.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked for a debate on unemployment as soon as we return from the recess. Unemployment has doubled during this Parliament. We shall be in recess for the whole of August and September. Surely October is late enough as it is for a debate, and we should have it as soon as we return and before the start of the new Session. If that is not understood, there will be a demand for the recall of Parliament if unemployment goes beyond 3 million.

Mr. Pym: It would not be right to give an undertaking about a debate in the first week when we return. There will be opportunities to debate this important subject. I was saying only that I was not prepared to give the undertaking for which the Leader of the Opposition asked.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that an early opportunity will be given to debate the forthcoming Commonwealth conference in Melbourne in the autumn, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to attend? I particularly hope that he will do so if high on the agenda is the Gleneagles agreement, the results of the discussion of which could have far-reaching effects on international sportsmen throughout the world.

Mr. Pym: I shall keep those representations in mind.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When we return after the recess, will the Leader of the Opposition give pride of place to early-day motion 511 entitled "An alternative strategy for jobs"? The motion deals with the questions of early retirement at 60, on a scheme similar to that introduced for miners, a 35-hour week, legislation on overtime, public sector wages, restoring cuts in public expenditure, longer holidays and so on.
[That this House believes that, in order to help reduce the ever rapidly increasing levels of unemployment, steps need to be taken to initiate massive public sector works, including housing construction, to speed up infrastructure projects, especially rail maintenance and electrification, sewers and canals rehabilitation and other major capital works, to restore cuts in public expenditure, to reduce the working week to 35 hours with legislation to limit the level of overtime, to create longer holidays and earlier retirement, to introduce school grants for 16 to 19-year-olds, and to increase substantially the £23·50 paid to those on work experience projects and thereby to present a sensible work-for-all alternative to the clapped-out monetarist policy as preached by the Government but not now practised with the same enthusiasm.]
If by then, after the Tory Party conference, the Leader of the House has replaced the Prime Minister, he will be in a much stronger position to accept this request.

Mr. Pym: That question was evidently addressed to the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to use some of his time for the hon. Gentleman's purpose, no doubt he will do so.

Mr. John Stokes: In the first week when we return, or as soon as possible thereafter, may we have a debate on the state of the nation, bearing in mind the joyous events of yesterday, which if translated into our economic life could entirely transform the state of the country?

Mr. Pym: In a sense, the debate on the Queen's Speech is in itself a debate addressed to the state of the nation.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that a statement will be made as early as possible on the future of the gas-gathering pipeline in the North Sea and the Moss Morran project, which are critical for the United Kingdom economy as a whole? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that there will be an early opportunity when we return, in the overspill period, for a debate on the Treasury


response—an inadequate response—to the Public Accounts Committee report on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Pym: I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy the hon. Gentleman's views about his first point, the importance of which I appreciate. I think that there will be an opportunity in the next Session for a debate on the Select Committee report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I believe that it will be a strong candidate for a day's debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it should have the attention of the House.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 570, signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, relating to world starvation?
[That this House supports the manifesto of the 54 Nobel Prize winners calling for immediate international action to combat mass starvation in the Third world.]
If my right hon. Friend cannot give an assurance that there will be a debate on the motion before the Mexico summit, will he at least ensure that the urgency of this aspect of relations with the Third world is properly seized by Ministers before the delegation leaves for Mexico City?

Mr. Pym: There have been recent opportunities to debate the subject—on the Brandt report and on the Consolidated Fund Bill. No doubt there will be other opportunities when we return.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: As the Secretary of State for the Environment will not report back from Liverpool until after the House has risen, will the Government urgently consider the heavy costs that county councils such as Manchester and Merseyside face for additional police activity and the compensation for damage? Will the Government consider applying the same system to help those authorities as the Department for the Environment uses for flood and storm damage?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is important, and the Government are currently considering that difficult matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If, by chance, my right hon. Friend is asked to bring us back before the due date, will he choose the time very carefully indeed, and may I help him by suggesting that he might bring us back in the middle of the Labour Party conference, because Labour Members will not have much to do there as it will not take much notice of them and they may as well be here?

Mr. Pym: I note my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion, but I would not wish to cause too much disappointment to too many people.

Mr. David Winnick: With unemployment at its highest level since the 1930s, and with the crisis in inner city areas, is there not a strong case for us to come back before the beginning of October? Bearing in mind the crisis, why should we break up for a long period?

Mr. Pym: We are breaking up for the period that we decided to break up for because the House has reached that conclusion.

Mr. Bill Walker: When the House resumes, may we have an opportunity to debate early-day motion 368 on cheque book journalism—
[That this House, deploring recent examples of cheque book journalism, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation making such practices illegal so that once again crime will be seen not to pay.]—
and particularly the amendment standing in my name—
[Line 1, after 'journalism', add 'and in particular condemns the payment of £50 to Susan Ettles for her contribution to an article about skinheads and for the anxiety and distress caused to her widowed mother who lives in Scotland and who had no knowledge of the matter'.]?
Is my right hon. Friend aware: that the articles in the Daily Mirror and the Daily Record have brought considerable distress to a constituent of mine who had no knowledge of the matter concerning skinheads and her daughter?

Mr. Pym: I note my hon. Friend's request. I shall keep it in mind, but it may be that he will have to find his own opportunity on a private Member's basis to debate that subject.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The Leader of the House will be aware that in the early hours of yesterday morning the House was debating certain important matters relating to the steel industry. However, is he aware that, in the course of that debate, his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) alleged that the EEC Commission was threatening to withhold large capital sums that the Government had already authorised unless; the British Steel Corporation's steel-making capacity was reduced by a further million tonnes, and that that allegation appears to be confirmed by reports in the press; this morning? Will he, therefore, ask the Secretary of State for Industry to come to the House tomorrow to make a clear statement that there is no intention whatsoever of further cutting back the steel industry with the loss of tens of thousands of jobs?

Mr. Pym: I do not believe that a statement tomorrow would be appropriate. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is subject to negotiation by my right hon. Friend and the Commission, and, frankly, the Government are not unhopeful about the outcome.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that 178 hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed early-day motion 569, which deals with the plight of glasshouse growers?
[That this House, alarmed at the increasingly unfair competition faced by the British glasshouse growers as the result of escalating energy prices, which have completely erased the advantages of providing the subsidy on oil, and the failure over a number of years of the European Economic Community to equalise fuel costs between the glasshouse industries of different countries, calls upon the British Government to take immediate action to offset the substantial financial advantages enjoyed by Dutch producers as the result of access to gas at artificially low prices.]
As we are unlikely to have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on that important subject before the House rises, will the right hon. Gentleman draw the matter to his right hon. Friend's attention and ensure that, as soon as the House returns, we


shall have an opportunity to raise it in the House? Does he accept that it is of vital importance to those people, who are mainly small business men—about whom the Government are pledged to do something—and their employees?

Mr. Pym: Yes, Sir. I am able to respond with great sympathy. I have a number of glasshouse growers in my constituency, as do many other hon. Members. It is a serious situation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done as much as he possibly could, but he realises the competitive difficulties of glasshouse growers. He is doing everything that he can, and I am sure that he will be returning to the subject in the autumn.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the Leader of the House aware that the multi-fibre arrangement renegotiations will enter a serious phase in October-November, which is about the time when the House reassembles, and that in textile areas like mine we already have an increase in unemployment of 183 per cent. since the Tory Government came to office? Is he further aware that many people are, therefore, deeply apprehensive about the outcome of the MFA renegotiation and it is important for the confidence of the industry that it should properly be renegotiated? Can he reassure us that any developments will be reported to the House in the form of a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade at the earliest opportunity, as I am sure that he recognises that such a statement is wanted by both sides of the House?

Mr. Pym: I shall convey those views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I was glad to be able to make a day available to debate the subject before the negotiations proper began, and I have no doubt that there will be continued interest in it when we return from the recess.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the potentially largest, fastest growing and most lucrative industries is that of video text or home information technology, and that Great Britain could well be one of the leaders in the industry but that it is fast falling behind? Is he prepared to give a day to debate the subject in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Pym: I cannot give that undertaking, but the subject is obviously a possible candidate, although, again, it may have to be in private Members' time. However, if we can find Government time, all the better.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the debate on 21 July, when the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) alleged that the Dundee chamber of commerce had issued a statement concerning myself. The chamber has since written to him stating that it never issued such a statement and asking him to withdraw the remarks that appear in col. 246 of the Official Report. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman, and he kindly informed me that he would be unable to be here today but that he hopes to deal with the matter when the House resumes. However, I felt that that was too long to leave the matter, so I wish to place it on record.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt we shall hear more about it.

British Telecommunications

The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, I should like to make a statement about telecommunications liberalisation. I apologise in advance for the length of the statement.
On 15 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published Professor Beesley's report on the use of British Telecommunications' network. This recommended complete freedom for anyone to use the national network to provide telecommunications services to third parties. Comments have now been received on the report from BT, from its unions, from British industry—both manufacturers and suppliers—and, of course, from user groups. The Department also held a seminar to allow a full discussion of the issues involved.
When he introduced Professor Beesley's report, my right hon. Friend said that the Government were attracted by his free market, please-the-customer approach. The comments received, often thoughtful and detailed, have done nothing to change this view; indeed, many of them have endorsed it. There now appears to be general acceptance that use of the BT network to supply services to third parties, particularly when there is an enhancement of existing facilities, stimulates additional use of the network and thereby increases BT's revenues. My right hon. Friend, therefore, proposes to use the powers in the British Telecommunications Act to allow the private sector much greater freedom to use BT'S inland network, subject in every case to technical compatibility with the network and compliance with the appropriate national and international standards.
This is a large step forward, which will help to transform telecommunications in this country from being dominated by a monopoly to being market-led and more genuinely responsibe to user demand. It will bring benefits not only to business and industry—and, therefore, jobs—but to all sections of the community. Such a transformation cannot, however, be achieved overnight, and my right hon. Friend proposes that, as has been done for attachments to the network, liberalisation of use of the network should be introduced on a step-by-step basis. BT and United Kingdom industry will thus have time to prepare for the new regime.
The first step will involve licensing private operators to use BT circuits to supply any value added network services which BT will not be supplying before 1 April 1982, and that will take effect when BT takes over from the Post Office on 1 October this year. The second step, commencing at the beginning of 1982, will involve freedom for the private sector to use BT circuits to compete with BT in the supply of all kinds of services, provided that these services involve substantial elements additional to the basic network facilities. This freedom will not apply to simple resale to third parties of capacity on circuits leased from BT. During these two stages, liberalisation will be effected by general licences for categories of service or by specific licences where that is more appropriate. Organisations wishing to provide such services should in the first instance apply for licences to BT, which will license them in conjunction with the Department of Industry. Services already licensed by BT will, of course, be allowed to continue in operation.
A possible third stage might involve allowing the private sector complete freedom to use the BT network to


supply services to third parties, including simple resale. This raises wider issues and my right hon. Friend will examine the consequences further in consultation with BT and other interested parties.
Professor Beesley also drew attention to the implications of his recommendations for international services and for competing public networks. No liberalisation in the area of international services is proposed at the. present time, but the implication of this will be explored further with BT.
In his statement on 15 April, my right hon. Friend restated his intention to consider the scope for allowing the provision of additional transmission services. A number of organisations have been investigating the market possibilities and the first application has already been received. This is a detailed application from Cable and Wireless, BP and Barclays for a licence to provide a business transmission system known as "Project Mercury". The Government are giving active consideration to this proposal and are, in principle, in favour of such a development. A technical examination of the project is under way and a decision will be announced as soon as that has been completed. Meanwhile, BT is being encouraged to respond sympathetically to requests to remove some anomalies affecting private networks, a number of which have already been licensed.
The diversity of uses to which the network can and will be put increases the importance of having a modern dynamic terminal equipment market in the United Kingdom. The arrangements for liberalisation of the supply of terminal equipment for attachment to the network are in hand, and there have been extensive discussions with industry and other interests about the order of priorities for this phased introduction of full competition. New technical committees of the British Standards Institution have already begun work on the writing of the necessary standards. A working party of the British Electro-Technical Approvals Board—BEAB—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Another quango.

Mr. Baker: —which has been invited to act as the authentication body under the new arrangements, is discussing the detailed procedures that it will follow. A report on progress will be laid before the House as soon as possible.
In the context of greater competition, Professor Beesley also stressed the need for removal of constraints on BT's capital investment. The Government share BT's belief in the benefits flowing from a modern and efficient telecommunications network and have allowed BT to increase its investment substantially over the last two years. BT is currently investing some £5 million per day and already has the largest investment programme in the country. In the interests of its customers, BT would like to invest more.
The Government are glad to acknowledge that under Sir George Jefferson's leadership BT has made substantial progress in improving its services to its customers and in accelerating the introduction of modern technology. The Government are concerned to respond as positively as the constraints on public expenditure and public sector borrowing permit to the needs of BT's vital investment programme, especially when that is directed to modernisation. The Government will in particular keep

very much in mind the need for the corporation to be able to compete successfully in the environment that it will increasingly face.
With this in view, the Government have received from BT a proposal for a new borrowing instrument which is being considered sympathetically. If accepted, this would be taken into account in fixing BT's level of external finance.

Mr. Stanley Orme: We should have liked very much to debate the long statement made by the Minister as it has a great deal of content and the proposals will have far-reaching effects. We are most concerned that Professor Beesley's report has been so overwhelmingly adopted by the Government. We believe that it was a hasty report and that the period of two months allowed for consultation after its publication was totally inadequate. We are most dissatisfied with the way in which the Government are handling the matter.
Does the Minister agree that the proposals will take essential traffic—and the best traffic—away from the public network operated by BT, thereby reducing its ability to make profit and undermining its investment programme?
Secondly, will not the proposals go far beyond anything else proposed in the EEC or by any of our other main competitors? Is the Minister aware—will he give details on this—that British manufacturers are concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the British telecommunications industry? Will not the proposals have a detrimental effect on British manufacturers and lead to a flood of foreign imports?
Finally, what effect will the proposals have on the cost to the consumer? We are very concerned about this. The Minister has said that in the first stage the Government will consider selling off some of the units. Will not this lead to an enormous increase in cost and a reduced market for British Telecommunications? What will be the effect of that on domestic consumers, not least those in rural areas?

Mr. Baker: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present and has no doubt heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the possibility of having a debate when we resume.
The right hon. Gentleman raised three points. First, he asked whether this would take essential traffic away. Some traffic, of course, will be taken away, but the Opposition should view this in proportion. The revenues of BT this year will exceed £5 billion. In the various recommendations and submissions made to us, the effect on BT's revenue in 1983, 1984 and 1985 of the measures on liberalisation that we have recommended will be between £70 million and £100 million turnover at the most, in relation to a turnover which this year was £5 billion and rising substantially.
The right hon. Gentleman's second question concerned the attitude of manufacturers in the United Kingdom. They are principally affected by the measures already announced concerning liberalisation of the attachments—the handsets, and answering equipment and the PABXs. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have had no representations recently from any manufacturer expressing concern about this. Indeed, all the large companies—GEC, Plessey, STC and Pye—are engaging in significant cost reduction exercises so that when the


equipment area is properly liberalised they will be able to compete successfully in the United Kindom and also to export.
The right hon. Gentleman's third question concerned the effects on tariffs. I wish to refute the wild allegations that liberalisation will of itself lead to substantial increases in residential telephone charges. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a substantial exercise has been taking place in BT for the last two or three years on restructuring its tariffs, for the simple reason that the domestic network loses money while the cost network makes money. That has been happening not only in Britain but in telecommunications regimes throughout the world.
The right hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned rural areas, although I did not notice the Labour Government taking any specific measures to protect those areas. If trunk calls are cheaper, many residential users in rural areas will benefit. In any case, whole areas will benefit from cheaper rural trunk calls which will make communications with the centres much cheaper. I have already had notification of one applicant for a van service who intends to take advantage of this by locating his office in a remote development area. The right hon. Gentleman must therefore recognise that cheap trunk calls can bring jobs to remote areas.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In order to be as fair as I can to the House, I propose exceptionally to allow these questions to run until 4.30 and then to move on.

Mr. Peter Mills: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said, but I am deeply concerned about the effect of these proposals on rural areas. Will he bear in mind that BT has already cancelled a meeting with South-West Conservative Members to discuss the possible closure of telephone kiosks, about which there is a real fear? I hope that he will be more reassuring about this problem than he has been so far.

Mr. Baker: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's anxieties. I shall bring them to the attention of the chairman and board of BT. As I have explained, the restructuring of BT tariffs has now been in hand for about 18 months, and that will continue whether or not we have liberalisation. I am concerned that, when there is liberalisation, rural and residential tariffs should not be unfairly loaded, and at a time when the real cost of telecommunications is falling I look to BT and its board as far as possible to achieve this change without significantly increasing charges in real terms for any class of user.

Mr. John Golding: Is the Minister aware that that is not possible, and that these proposals will increase telecommunications costs not only in the rural areas but also for small business men and the domestic user? Is he aware that by taking away £100 million turnover initially—potentially much more—these proposals will lead to restrictions on development and modernisation? If the hon. Gentleman does not think that these proposals will damage British industry and jobs, why has he given British industry three years in which to adjust? Is it not because he knows full well that this statement will create jobs in Japan, America and other countries with a resultant loss of jobs in Great Britain?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that, even by 1990, under these proposals and the proposals that we have made in the past, more than 90 per cent. of our telecommunications and services will still be provided by BT. That is a commanding share of the market. Most companies would not look upon that as a threat to their entire tariff structure. I do not accept the sort of scaremongering that I have heard today. In fact, that was refuted by consumer interests and by Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd at a recent seminar that we held.
I believe that these proposals will significantly increase the number of jobs in this area, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. When liberalisation along these lines occurred in America from 1976 to 1978, jobs in AT and T, which is the equivalent of BT, went up by 6 per cent. and by 12 per cent. in the private sector. Therefore, there was an increase in jobs in both the private and public sectors. The hon. Gentleman should not let monopoly stand in the way of job creation.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that if there are cases of abuse in the granting of these licences, particularly by firms overseas, he has sufficient power to terminate the licence as a matter of urgency, especially if it is likely to lead to unfair competition with our home industry?

Mr. Baker: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As to the liberalisation of buying telephone equipment, an elaborate system has already been established through using the British Standards Institution and the BEAB. During my statement, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) commented that that was another quango. If he wants to enter these debates, he really must inform himself. It is a private sector test authority. That is the body that we shall use. It is well established in private industry and is supported by the unions. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to become informed.

Mr. John McWilliam: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office Engineering Union, of which I am a member, asked Logica to carry out research into the effect of the Beesley report? It said that if cream skimming on the scale of the third proposal took place, 15 per cent. of the trunk call revenues to BT would be lost and that that would require a price increase of about 25 per cent. for remaining users. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is unlikely that users in the rural communities will benefit in any way whatever? How does he equate his statement on "Project Mercury"—which sounds more like a space shot—with the statement made by Lord Lyell, who in his reply on behalf of the Government said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the noble Lord was speaking for the Government, the hon. Gentleman is free to quote him, but if he was speaking for himself that is another story.

Mr. McWilliam: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am quoting from the House of Lords Hansard of 13 January, when Lord Lyell, replying on behalf of the Government, said:
but the network, the actual wiring which goes from one place to another across the country … will remain the entire responsibility of British Telecommunications."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 1981; Vol. 416, c. 8.]
That was at a time when the Minister had received the Beesley report.

Mr. Baker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said in my statement. The Logica report assumed that we would allow total resale straight away. Therefore, its figures are very different, and the findings are exaggerated as a result.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned rural areas. I must emphasise that in any tariff restructuring in which trunk calls become relatively cheaper many rural areas will gain from cheaper trunk calls—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW?"] Because they must communicate with other communications centres, and the costs will be cheaper. One significant application that I have already received comes from a company that wants to place its operation in a remote development area, with the result that employment for several hundred people will be created there.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a time limit on questions. I therefore hope that we shall have brief questions and answers.

Mr. Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on being a Minister who acts within two months of receiving a report in order to carry out its findings? He deserves a great deal of co-operation Although hon. Members have asked about the loss of revenue, have estimates been made of the increase in revenue arising from the extra services that will be used as well as a greater use of the general circuit? As well as the rural costs, will my hon. Friend also consider the costs that will accrue to elderly people, particularly the single elderly, who rely on the telephone as the one method of staying in communication with the rest of the world?

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. Benefits will flow to BT because these proposals will increase its revenue. The American equivalent of BT, the Bell system, pays money to certain value added services for the business they generate for the Bell network. I wish that Labour Members would appreciate that fact and live in the real world.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his statement will be seen as an attempt by the Government dogmatically to pursue a policy of privatisation without regard to the national interest? Surely the Government should distinguish between a public monopoly and a private monopoly, where the user is the nation and the benefit comes back to the nation. Does he not also realise that many people will see this as the thin end of the wedge and will feel that if the Government get away with this they will be able to hive off other national assets in the telecommunications sector?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates. I am quite sure that the changes we are making will be to the benefit of the consumer, British manufacturing industry and eventually, through higher revenues, BT. In addition, they will create jobs. What is wrong with that package?

Mr. Bob Cryer: That is not what will happen.

Mr. Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend said that BT would introduce a new form of borrowing instrument. He also said that that would count against the external financing limit. Therefore, what is the

use of it? Is he not aware that our institutions are investing abroad at the rate of about £2,000 million a year, including companies such as AT and T? Surely the solution is to take that part of BT outside the public sector altogether and to allow the institutions to invest in it to produce the kind of telecommunications system that Britain should have.

Mr. Baker: I am very much aware of the interest that my hon. Friend has shown in the capital investment needs of the nationalised industries generally and British Telecommunications in particular. We have received a proposal from Warburgs to issue a form of preference share for BT relating to its profit performance, based on its revenue and the profit related to the revenue. We and the Treasury are considering that with sympathy. Of all the various proposals that have been put to us, that is by far the most optimistic of those that we have considered. Even if it were to be approved, it is still likely that it would probably count against the external financing limit and, therefore, part of the public sector borrowing requirement for British Telecommunications. The fact that BT can go to the market to appeal for funds from a sector of the market that is not the same as the gilt-edged market means that there is an element of additionality, because if the preference share were to be floated the EFL of BT would be higher than it would otherwise have been.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the reality that the proposal is part of a continuing vicious attack on a highly successful public; enterprise which sticks in the craw of the Government? As that clearly will give access to the most profitable areas—while British Telecommunications will be required to maintain the rest of the services—can the Minister spell out in some detail, to satisfy both myself and the queries raised by Conservative Members that he has failed so far to answer, the safeguard for rural areas, small businesses, the elderly and the safety standards involved with the new equipment?

Mr. Baker: I specifically referred to safety standards; in my statement. There is an elaborate system of ensuring that safety standards will be preserved. I have already answered questions on the restructuring of the tariffs of BT, but a tariff restructuring is taking place in BT, apart from the liberalisation. The proposals recently made by the board of BT were made long before the board knew the Government's policy and it has made some progress along that road. I expect the board to take into account the considerations that I have made. We are living in a period when the real cost of telecommunications is coming down. I shall not permit a regime by the board that will load one type of consumer, whether those in the rural areas or the elderly.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Those of us who warmly support the general philosophy developed in the Beesley report will be enthusiastic about what my hon. Friend has said. As the effective liberalisation will depend to a considerable extent in the early stages on the attitude of the Post Office, which has licensing powers in its hands, what appeal will there be from the Post Office if the Government feel that the liberalisation is not being applied too generously? If that liberalisation is agreed by the Post Office but is strongly obstructed, as some of us fear and expect, by the trade unions who disapprove of the policy, what redress will we have?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend asked whether BT will exercise the regime fairly. There: are two constraints. First,


the licensing powers are ultimately vested in the Secretary of State and the Government. If the Secretary of State or any Minister in the Department feels that BT is being unduly obstructionist, he will be able to use his powers of licensing and issue a licence. There are also the activities of the Office of Fair Trading. Any private operator who feels that he is being restricted and has not received his licence may appeal to the Office of Fair Trading.
My hon. Friend asked whether the unions would co-operate. During the passage of the British Telecommunications Act I spoke several times to Mr. Bryan Stanley, general secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union, and I spoke to him earlier today. I do not expect the union to be obstructionist to the proposals that I have outlined.

Mr. Skinner: While the exercise is being completed, how many jobs will be created? The Minister has a duty to tell the House. What is all this about the new word being constantly used today, "liberalisation"? Is it what I would call a Warrington word?

Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that more jobs will be created as a result of my statement today than if I had not made it.

Mr. Skinner: How many?

Mr. Baker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what has happened in America in the past four or five years of liberalisation. Employment has increased in the main provider of the network, AT and T, and the number of jobs has increased among the private operators. I expect the same to happen in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Richard Page: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. It will be a major step forward in the promotion of information technology in this country. As Japan has stated that it believes that information technology will be its major economic and employment sector in the 1990s, is my hon. Friend prepared to expand his awareness of information support programmes to take advantage of his statement today? To continue with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern), surely, if BT is a profitable sector of our economy, the public should be allowed to invest directly in its success through the City. If we are to have some sort of preference shares I cannot understand why such shares should count against our public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Baker: I shall draw the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) to the attention of my colleagues in the Treasury. The proposal from Warburgs is by far the most advanced proposal that we have had about the financing of nationalised industries by going to the private market. If one can consider floating a preference share based on profit and performance—we could do that only in a nationalised industry that is profitable, which BT is and will be in the future—one is creating a novel form of financing for the nationalised industries which will support the investment programme.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that when people hear talk about the restructuring of tariffs they know that as a consequence all prices will rise across the board? I support what my hon.
Friend is trying to do, but I hope that at the end of the day the proposal will lead to an expansion of telecommunications, because we need that to enlarge the market and bring down prices. If it does not bring down prices, the Government will be blamed.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, because that is the other side of the equation. I reassure the House on what I have already said about residential and rural tariffs, but the fact that we are to have competitive services, both value added and the possibility of an additional network, will produce a choice for the consumer for the first time in British Telecommunications services. Over the years that is bound to improve quality of service and ensure service at competitive prices.

Mr. Gerry Neale: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the Minister on his statement. Despite the sincere comments made from the Opposition about their opposite view, I reassure my hon. Friend that there is a strong view held by Conservative Members that where the private sector can provide alternative services it should be permitted to do so. We welcome that considerably. Will he reassure us that he intends to pay close attention to the pricing policies of elements of the monopoly that remain to ensure that there is no cross-subsidisation which could result in unfair competition?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend knows that there are powers in the British Telecommunications Act to ensure that we are kept fully informed of all the details and that there is not cross-subsidisation. The Secretary of State has powers to require some operations of BT to be hived off into separate companies that are separately accountable so that the true costs of such operations can be seen openly.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us welcome his announcement, but we should be happier about it if we could be reassured, first, that domestic telephone users will not suffer as a result and, secondly, that the new borrowing instruments, which are called Warburg instruments, will be adopted by the Treasury?

Mr. Baker: I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my ministerial colleagues. As regards domestic and rural tariffs, I reinforce what I said earlier. There are within the arrangements, and consequent upon the tariff restructuring and liberalisation, substantial gains for the rural areas. One of the ways that we can ensure that BT remains competitive in those areas is to reinforce its investment programme, and we have done that. We inherited a dramatically declining investment programme from the Labour Government and in each of our years in office that programme has increased considerably—for example, from £1·6 billion to £1·9 billion this year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As only two more hon. Members wish to question the Minister, I shall call both before calling the Opposition spokesman.

Mr. Tim Renton: I welcome the concept of the preferred shares, but does my hon. Friend agree that such shares normally count as part of the share capital of a company and that if they end up in the hands of institutional investors it will mean that some part of the equity ownership of BT has moved from the Government to the institutions?
Secondly, is it not a paradox that all BT's borrowings count as part of the public sector borrowing requirement,


but those of Cable and Wireless, which is 100 per cent. Government-owned and is about to enter competition with BT, do not count as part of the PSBR?

Mr. Baker: I confirm what my hon. Friend said in the latter part of his question. The anomaly has existed for a number of years, largely because Cable and Wireless has not had recourse to borrowings for a considerable number of years and has generated investment from its own cash flow.
There is an element of what my hon. Friend suggested in the concept of a preference share. The alternative would be a participating bond, but the key element of a share or a bond is that it must be related to the profit performance of the nationalised industry. Otherwise it will change nothing.

Mr. John Browne: I fully support the initial move to privatise the industry, but I have some severe reservations, as, I suspect, do some of my hon. Friends, about the extent of the operation. A rump end of a monopoly in terms of private rural tariffs has been left behind and it could undercut prices on the trunk lines, thereby driving out competition on those lines, while raising rural tariffs. Will my hon. Friend explain what safeguards will be provided to prevent that from happening?

Mr. Baker: It is generally recognised that none of those problems will necessarily flow from the measures that I have announced or from the liberalisation. Various safeguards can be built into the provision of any value added network services as regards the terms of the interconnection with BT from the additional business. I remind my hon. Friend of what has happened in America. Where such services operate in the United States, they do so for the benefit of the main provider, AT and T, the Bell system, to the extent that the company pays certain service providers for the benefit of their operations, and not the other way round.

Mr. Orme: The Minister has failed to reassure the House and many of his hon. Friends about rural services, small businesses and the elderly. If the consumer is offered a cheaper service, he will choose that service. Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, guarantee that the services that we are concerned about will not be run down and that costs will not go up as we fear? Will he guarantee to the House that he will protect those services?

Mr. Baker: I appreciate that there is anxiety on that point and I confirm what I have already said. First, I counsel the House against listening to too much scaremongering. That point was made repeatedly by consumer interests, and not Government spokesmen, at the recent seminar. I also confirm that at a time when the real costs of telecommunications are falling I shall look to BT to achieve the change that we have been talking about without, as far as possible, significantly increasing charges in real terms for any class of user.

Herring Fishing (The Minch)

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles): I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need to stop immediately herring fishing in the Minch.
I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for not giving notice before 12 noon. I hastened to do so as soon as I had details of the matter.
This is the first time that I have submitted a motion under Standing Order No. 9. I say that not to comment on, or to pre-empt, your eventual decision, Mr Speaker, but to make the point that it is not a procedure that I invoke lightly.
The matter is specific, because it applies solely to the dangerous situation concerning herring stocks in the Minch. For three years, fishermen of the Western Isles and others who have fished these waters have acquiesced in the total ban on herring fishing in the Minch. That has been a severe sacrifice, but it was agreed in the knowledge that the herring stock had been virtually wiped out and that if it was to be saved protection had to be given and time had to be allowed to allow the stock to revive.
So severe were the restrictions that two local boats that fished only with drift nets—a conservation measure in itself—were not exempted from the ban, despite several appeals that I made to the Ministry of Agriculture.
I have received a sheaf of telegrams from skippers of vessels from Stornoway, Eriskay, Scalpay in my constituency, Mallaig on the West coast and Avoch on the East coast. The message is clear. Those skippers say that the fishing must end immediately or their livelihoods will be destroyed virtually overnight, in spite of their previous sacrifice.
The limited stocks of herring are being decimated and, because of previous experience, fishermen have no faith in talk of management controls. They all express anger and astonishment that the Government have acquiesced in the blunder.
The matter is urgent because another two or three weeks of the fishing would deplete stocks and destroy for ever the staple living of fishing communities. Today's papers report that hundreds of tonnes of herring caught in the reopened West of Scotland grounds yesterday went for fish meal. At a time of world hunger and when our fishermen need to make a reasonable living, food that should be going for human consumption is being reduced to fish meal.
It is essential that the fishing is stopped immediately, so that fair shares can be allocated to the local fleet and the traditional fleet that fishes the Minch and until satisfactory arrangements for control have been agreed. Appalling damage has been done to the stocks, and that is why I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely:
the need to stop immediately herring fishing in the Minch.
The House will have listened with anxious care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. He knows that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I listened with great care to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Fiji and Vanuatu (Gifts)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I beg to move,
That Mr. Austin Mitchell and Mr. John Stradling Thomas have leave of absence to present on behalf of this House a gift

of a Clerk's Table to the House of Representatives of Fiji, and a gift of a Speaker's Gavel and Desk Set to the House of Assembly of Vanuatu.
On 23 July the House approved the presentation of gifts to the House of Representatives of Fiji and to the House of Assembly of Vanuatu. The motion will give the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) leave of absence to present the gifts on our behalf. They will be accompanied by Mr Michael Ryle, Clerk of the Overseas Office, and together they will comprise a formal delegation for the purpose of making the presentation on behalf of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New clause 30

DUTIES OF WATER AUTHORITIES ETC. WITH REGARD TO NATURE CONSERVATION AND THE COUNTRYSIDE

'.—(1) For subsection (1) of section 22 of the Water Act 1973 (duties with respect to nature conservation and amenity) there shall be substituted the following sub-section—

"(1) In formulating or considering any proposals relating to the discharge of any of the functions of water authorities, those authorities and the appropriate Minister or Ministers—

(a) shall, so far as may be consistent with the purposes of this Act and of the Land Drainage Act 1976, so exercise their functions with respect to the proposals as to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest;
(b) shall have regard to the desirability of protecting buildings or other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest; and
(c) shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty of, or amenity in, any rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna features, buildings or objects."

(2) In subsection (3) of that section the words "not being land managed as a nature reserve" shall be omitted.

(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(4) Where any land has been notified to a water authority under subsection (3) above, the authority shall consult with the Council before executing or carrying out any works or operations appearing to them to be likely to destroy or damage any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest.

(5) Subsection (4) above shall not apply in relation to any emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) are notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.

(6) References in this section to water authorities shall include references to internal drainage boards and the reference in subsection (3) above to the water authority in whose area the land is situated shall include a reference to the internal drainage board in whose district the land is situated."'.—[Mr. Michael Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment (c), in line 8, leave out from ' 1976,' to first 'the' in line 9 and insert
'in exercising their functions with respect to the proposals have regard to the desirability of furthering'.
Amendment (a), in line 21, leave out
'appearing to them to be'.
Amendment (b), in line 27, at end insert
'or any operation to maintain existing works, that is to say, to cleanse, repair or otherwise maintain in a due state of efficiency any existing water course or drainage work, but excluding any operation to improve existing works, that is to say to deepen, widen straighten or otherwise improve any existing watercourse or remove or alter mill dams, weirs or other obstructions to watercourses, or raise, widen or otherwise improve any existing drainage works.'.
New clause 14—Amendment to the Water Act 1973.
Government amendment No. 162.

Mr. Roberts: Subsection (1) of the new clause is in fulfilment of a commitment made by the Government in Committee to consider whether a balance can be struck

between conservation and recreation in the duties of water authorities. It does not provide the same duty for conservation as for recreation. In the case of recreation, water authorities are required under section 20 of the Water Act 1973 to take steps to secure the use of water and associated land for the purposes of recreation. This is in recognition of the special position of the authorities as the owners of large stretches of inland water that are eminently suitable for water sports. It would be inappropriate to give them a similar duty to take steps in relation to conservation. However, the new clause gives these authorities, for the first time, a positive duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and nature conservation in the course of their work rather than the more nebulous "have regard to" duty contained in section 22.
The new clause fulfils the undertaking given by the Government in Committee to extend the existing duty of' water authorities and Ministers under section 22 of the Water Act 1973 to give them a positive duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and nature conservation when formulating or considering any proposals relating to the discharge of their functions, and also to require water authorities to consult the Nature Conservancy Council before carrying out works or operations in areas notified to them as of special interest.
To further conservation will be an objective in all the water authorities' works—albeit, a secondary objective. It is, however, a positive objective. I hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will consider that the Government have met the spirit of the arguments put forward from both sides in Committee and that he will consider withdrawing new clause 14.

Mr. Denis Howell: I know that the House wishes to make progress but I have one point to raise on the recreational side. I appreciate what the Government have done to assist the determination of hon. Members to see that water authorities pay as much regard to the need for conservation in all their works as to provide for recreation. I would have preferred the words proposed by the Opposition in new clause 14, but I do not take issue with the Government on the matter. I express my appreciation for the Government's new clause, which will have my support. I shall not, therefore, move new clause 14.
I wish to carry out a promise that I made to the Sailboard Association that found some difficulty in persuading certain water authorities to make provision for it. I am glad to see that the Minister with responsibility for sport is present. I do not want an answer now, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this matter on board and ensure that these increasingly popular pastimes—sailboarding is a very new one—can be facilitated.
I was informed of difficulties experienced with the Thames water authority and the Severn-Trent water authority. I have made inquiries from both those authorities. I find that the Datchet sailing club is concerned about the speed of yachts at the Queen Mother reservoir, which is felt to be contrary to the interests of sailboarding. This illustrates the need for harmonisation among yachtsmen, sailboardmen, rowers and anglers. I am pleased to learn from the Thames water authority that it is likely to make far greater areas of reservoirs available soon for sailboarding. I hope that this will facilitate sensible provision covering the whole water authority area.
I have been unable to make personal inquiries about the position within the Severn-Trent water authority. Some inquiries have been made on my behalf. I find that problems exist at Bartley reservoir, although sailboarding is allowed at Ogston, Foremark and Drycote. One problem is the fear of water authorities that people may pollute water that is to be put into the system for drinking purposes. One can understand such fears. Nevertheless, as birds cannot be prevented from flying over reservoirs, with the risk of pollution involved, I am sceptical of that approach. I hope that water authorities will enter into negotiations with the sailboarding and surfing organisations to see that the consumer is protected but also that the greatest possible use is made, wherever practicable, of reservoirs for recreation.
I thank the Government for meeting the Opposition on the conservation point. The conservation world, which attaches importance to these matters, has the assurance that statutory water authorities will take into account environmental and conservation issues as well as recreation issues.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) says about withdrawing new clause 14, I am disappointed that the Government have not gone further in making conservation equivalent to amenity and to recreation. The Under-Secretary of State talked of a positive duty. So far as I can see, the duty is permissive. To the best of my knowledge, it is more a negative rather than a positive duty. One has to ask what will be the immediate effect of the new clause.
Two water authorities, North-West and Severn-Trent, have a good record on conservation. The performance of other authorities is not particularly good. A number of land drainage boards have a decidedly bad record. More must be done. I suspect that the limitation that the Government have included in the new clause is based more on consideration of public expenditure than on anything else.
An enormous amount needs to be done not merely to conserve what already exists but, in a great many places, to improve the condition of streams and rivers so that flora and fauna, which are not now present, can develop. A stream called Gore brook passes through my constituency and also the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). It flows through a number of public parks. The stream is the only bad part of those parks. The water authority says that it cannot do anything because its capital expenditure is devoted to a sewage pumping scheme higher up the stream. One is therefore faced with a situation of continued pollution of the stream.
I should have liked water authorities to be told that they must do a great deal more. The same applies to many country parks on the urban fringe. An example is the river Tame in Greater Manchester. The Civic Trust, local authorities, the Department of the Environment and the Countryside Commission have done a great deal of work in the country park but there is still flowing through it a polluted river that wrecks the whole concept.
In Committee, I spoke at some length about the Water Space Amenity Commission's guidelines on conservation and land drainage. On that occasion I said—and it is still true—that water authorities and drainage boards had not taken as much notice of them as they might have done.
Given that the new clause is approved, I hope that a great many people locally will ensure that their public representatives on the water authorities—and local councillors are in the majority on all water authorities—are pressed to do a great deal more than they are doing at the moment.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I can only express my disappointment with new clause 30. I understand what the Minister is trying to do, but in my view the clause fails to come to terms with one specific matter which I raised in Committee and with an additional obligation which has been imposed on those engaged in agriculture. I referred to the first matter in Committee when I spoke about maintenance, and there was considerable agreement about it. Amendment (b) seeks to give substance to the amendment which I expected the Minister to draft in accordance with his undertaking to the Committee:
I will look at this again to see if I can find a compromise amendment.
It seems to me that the Government's new clause does not constitute a compromise amendment. What is more,


it is a positive rejection of the arguments which were advanced in Committee and which were given some credence by try hon. Friend.
In amendment (b), I have sought to set out a reasonable response to the criticism made in Committee by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that there should not be a maintenance cloak for capital works. During his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman said: but not the maintenance cloak for capital works. We should want safeguards about that.
Amendment (b) sets out a comprehensive list of capital works, and the definition of "capital works" has been drawn from a number of existing statutes, so that there is nothing new about it.
I should like to have seen "maintenance works" defined more clearly in the Bill so that the internal drainage boards, which are specifically drawn into the conservation orbit by the clause, were able to know exactly where they stood.
In Committee, my hon. Friend recognised the need to minimise the bureaucratic commitment of internal drainage boards. When speaking about the compromise amendment that he hoped to introduce on Report, he said:
It would remove bureaucracy, paperwork and consultation in certain spheres of common or garden maintenance."—
[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 June 1981; c. 642–3.]
Clearly, he recognised the need for this to happen.
But what exactly has the Minister in mind for safeguarding the internal drainage boards against the possibility of very substantial increases in the amount of consultation and bureaucratic paperwork which could be involved in abiding by the spirit of the new clause? As I said in Committee, the boards are not well endowed with staff. They are lean on the staff side. They do not have the resources to undertake massive amounts of consultation. Therefore, it is essential that they should be protected, otherwise all those who fund them will be burdened with additional costs.
The seemingly explicit exclusion of maintenance works indicated by the deliberate shift away from the undertaking given by the Minister in Committee has caused some concern in agricultural circles. Was it done with the agreement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? What consultations were there between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry, and what is the view of the Ministry about new clause 30, taking into account the maintenance duties of internal drainage boards? I should also like to know who else was consulted. Were the Association of Water Authorities and the Association of Drainage Authorities consulted about this shift in emphasis away from maintenance?
The agriculture industry has been committed to expenditure in the form of increased costs to IDBs which those engaged in agriculture, as ratepayers, help to fund. They have a right to answers to these questions, and I look to the Minister to let the agriculture industry have answers, because they are important.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does not what the hon. Gentleman is saying confirm what many of us said repeatedly in Committee, that there should have been an agriculture Minister present in Committee? The argument was not that the Opposition were hoping for two different policies but that the vicarious presence of the Minister of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rather than his physical presence led to a great deal of complication in the Bill which might not otherwise have arisen.

Mr. Shepherd: I shall not attempt to dispute w hat the hon. Gentleman says, although this is an environmental matter. But I had hoped that there would be a greater level of agreement. Certainly what I see as disagreement would not have occurred. I do not say that an agriculture Minister should have been present, although certain difficulties have arisen because there was not one present. However, this is a Department of the Environment Bill, and I should like to know what consultation there was and what happened behind the scenes about the agriculture industry, which is affected so vitally by an environmental decision. There is always an immense impact on agriculture arid other industries by environmental considerations. It is not necessarily pinned down to agriculture, because many other industries could have been and may yet be affected if the principle of conservation, and its enhancement, is taken yet further.
I turn to amendment (c). New clause 30 now puts a clear additional burden on water authorities to further conservation, and within the expression "water authorities" is now included the internal drainage boards. It is that aspect of water authority work on which I wish to focus.
A number of matters arise from the furtherance of conservation. First, why are only water authorities and internal drainage boards singled out for enhanced conservation duty? Local authorities—county councils and district councils—spend considerable sums on land drainage. In this respect, the GLC is a big spender as well. The local authorities are subject to section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968, which provides only that they "shall have regard", whereas the water authorities are now singled out for the additional duty of taking positive step; further to enhance conservation. There is a two-tier structure coming into this exercise between different types of authorities.
There is a difference between the water authorities and the IDBs, and it relates to how schemes are paid for and worked out. The positive obligation to further conservation will cost money, although it is difficult to quantify how much. It will depend on the scheme or the nature of the works involved.
After completion of any works, there can be three conservation states: a reduction in the conservation state, maintenance of the current conservation state, and an enhancement or furtherance of the conservation state. It is that last step which the Bill seeks to achieve.
There is a distinction between the facility with which a water authority and that with which an IDB can fund any increase related to the furtherance of conservation. Water authorities are large and multifunctional and therefore have greater flexibililty in their ability to divert funds from one point to another. The internal drainage boards are relatively small authorities with one function only. Their source of revenue is the drainage rate. It should be borne in mind that in many cases drainage rates are levied on buildings, including many dwelling-houses, and also non-agricultural land, and that a large part of those rates is collected by local authorities under section 81 agreements.
5 pm
The additional burden of IDB expenditure will therefore fall directly not only on farmers but on local non-agricultural residents. The former will have yet another cost to bear, and the latter may not easily comprehend why the drainage rate has to be increased. The increase in costs due to the furtherance of conservation will fall on local farmers and residents. The clause, as worded, is almost an open cheque book.
I shall quote the chairman of the parliamentary committee of the NFU, who said in a letter to the Minister:
Under this clause, farmers effectively would have to contribute a part of their drainage rates to furthering the nation's conservation interest. This seems to be not in line with the spirit of the Bill which is that farmers, in the national interest, will be expected wherever possible to conserve sites of scientific or scenic importance, but in return that the nation will ensure that they are not financially penalised".
The spirit of the Bill was frequently referred to in Committee, and it is something that we should take into account. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) underlined the point in Committee. He said:
I have been fairly consistent in saying that if someone suffers physical or pecuniary disadvantage because, in the interests of the community, conservation should change the use of, or restrict activities on, land or water, the community should be prepared to compensate".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 19 May 1981; c. 122.]
So there is a distinct agreement between the two sides about the spirit of the Bill. The Minister should bear that in mind when considering the consequences of new clause 30 as drafted. Certainly the wording of amendment (c) seeks to put the matter in perspective.
The preponderance of the works expenditure of an IDB is on maintenance and is therefore not grant-aided. If the Government cannot make funds available to cover the furtherance of conservation—something that is done for the nation as a whole—the consequence will be a reduction in the level of land drainage works commensurate with the increase, or, in the case of water authorities, perhaps even a reduction in sewage treatment works, which are urgently needed and which are rightly being called for by conservation interests worried about pollution of rivers and coasts.
These are important matters. In my opinion, new clause 30 does not pay adequate attention to what was said in Committee, to the commitments that were made there, or to the spirit of the Bill that conservation is for the good of the nation and for the heritage of the nation as a whole, and that therefore conservation costs should be borne by the nation as a whole. As the Bill is drafted and as new clause 30 is drafted, the consequences of the furtherance of conservation will fall on a small sector of the population. That cannot be right. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on these important matters.

Mr. Peter Hardy: First, I wish to endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks). His speech demonstrated the merit of new clause 14. I share his view that we should provide a higher priority for conservation. We have moved some way in that direction, and if we accept new clause 14 we shall be able to go further along that road.
I welcome new clause 30, and I hope that the Minister will allow us to accept it wholeheartedly by accepting amendment (a). New clause 30 is consistent with the Water Act 1973 and the Land Drainage Act 1976, although

neither of those measures could be described as perfect. Nevertheless, the new clause is consistent with those defective measures. The new clause places a duty on the regional water authorities and the internal drainage boards to exercise their functions so as to further nature conservation and amenity. It removes the anomaly, which exercised our minds in Committee, whereby the regional water authority, but not the IDB, seems to have direct responsibility for nature conservation.
However, I have one reservation. I welcome the new clause's intention, but it is qualified by the words "appearing to them". It suggests that perhaps regional water authorities, but particularly IDBs, do not always have the expertise that is necessary to assess whether an operation is likely to be detrimental to a site of special scientific interest. The purpose is to ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council is able to advise regional authorities and IDBs whether an operation will damage an SSSI. The NCC is equipped to offer that expertise.
Amendment (a) would resolve that problem. It would remove the words "appearing to them", and that would place the responsibility of deciding whether an operation will be damaging fairly on the NCC, which is the best body to deal with the matter.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) was, as usual, extremely persuasive. We listened to him with great interest in Committee, where he made a useful contribution. The House, too, should listen to him with care. However, I am uneasy about amendment (b). Unfortunately, it could do much harm. The hon. Member referred to operations to improve existing works. However, he overlooked the fact that operations to improve existing works cannot and should not be charged to revenue account. Some of us are extremely anxious about the tendency of some authorities to carry out improvement works and thus escape some of the obligations which capital expenditure programmes would involve.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I thought that I had made it clear that I was referring strictly to maintenance works and not to improvement works. I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I gave a false impression.

Mr. Hardy: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is a reference to "improve existing works" in amendment (b). That is why I regard the amendment as somewhat defective.
Over the past few years some maintenance works have been enormously damaging. Often they have been carried out at short notice. One can appreciate the difficulties of the authorities involved. Perhaps they have tried to keep teams of workmen employed in slack periods. Nevertheless, sometimes those rather hurried schemes have resulted in damage. For example, one local authority carried out what it described as channel maintenance to a stretch of water, and damaged a number of otter holes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not approve of that. Such carelessness is possible.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to amendment (b), which reads:
but excluding any operation to improve existing works".
The improvement is there, but it is a specific exclusion rather than a maintenance. Perhaps I might put one question to the hon. Gentleman. If one removes a


cupboard and finds cobwebs behind it, and in cleaning destroys the habitat of spiders, is one doing something wrong?

Mr. Hardy: I do not believe that I have any cobwebs in my cupboards—nor do I think that I have any skeletons there. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Nevertheless, maintenance works are often carried out in ways which are dangerous or harmful. For example, an operation to maintain existing works can be as ecologically damaging as any major capital investment scheme. Herbicides might be used. Mowing might take place during the birds' breeding season. Trees and shrubs might be removed. Important parts of a site of special scientific interest might be cleared to allow a dredging machine access. All such activities require us to be particularly sensitive. That is why I support the Government. I hope that they will maintain their logical position in this matter and resist the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
The Minister might believe that new clause 30 supersedes and makes unnecessary new clause 51. He will recall that in Committee we were extremely disturbed about the Halvergate Marshes. New clause 51 is particularly relevant to that problem.
If the Minister maintains that new clause 30 does all that the Committee wished to be done and all that is embodied in new clause 51, I hope that he will be able to say that the Halvergate Marshes problem could be satisfactorily resolved by the application of new clause 30 and that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be able to award grants for conservation purposes.
We shall be obliged if the Minister can say that the necessary powers exist in new clause 30 and that the powers in sections 7, 90 and 91 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 can be used. However, if the clause is added to the Bill it will require drainage authorities to further conservation, riot merely to have regard to it. In consequence they will have the power to spend some money, perhaps not much, on conservation. That will mean that the Ministry of Agriculture will have the power to grant-aid such expenditure.
That interpretation of new clause 30 is critically important, not just because it will shape the attitudes of the new water authorities and drainage boards but because the wording is copied from clause 39(2)(a). It should have the same impact on the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service as any proposals for farm capital expenditure. That is crucial. I hope that the Minister will explain how the provisions will apply to Halvergate.
I understand that at a recent meeting of interested bodies, including the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, an agreement was reached which will involve the IDBs in compensating farmers. The IDBs have been reluctant about this matter. The IDB in question seems to be hesitant about approving the arrangement. It says that it has no powers to pay money for such a purpose. The Ministry now takes the view that such expenditure is legitimate. I hope that the Minister can satisfy our anxiety.
Will the Minister confirm that, if an IDB is involved in a negotiated agreement and wants to pay compensation arising from the need to meet conservation aims and objectives, and if the compensation included in the cost-benefit analysis still enables the scheme to meet the Treasury discount rate of 5 per cent., under new clause 30

the IDB would be able to make such payments and that the Ministry of Agriculture, whether enthusiastically or not, would be able to provide the necessary grant aid?
I hope that the Minister will respond to those questions because they are important and deal with anxieties expressed in Committee.

Mr. David Ennals: The Halvergate Marshes problem concentrated our attention in Committee. It is relevant at this stage because we have approached a moment of crucial decision. The Broads authority has negotiated an agreement on the proposed drainage of about 5,800 acres of the Halvergate Marshes. The area to be drained is considered to be of national importance by the Countryside Commission. It is defined by the Broads authority as an area of grade 1 landscape value of distinct broadland character. The Broads authority has decided that the impact of the drainage would adversely affect the character of the area.
5.15 pm
For that reason the scheme was considered to be unacceptable by the authority. It argued that if the MAFF expressed the intention to provide grant aid for the proposal, it would have no alternative but to express views on the matter at a public inquiry. I support it in that.
Subsequently, the authority has sought to achieve, at regional level, a set of safeguarding measures that would retain a significant part of the distinctive character of the area. The authority has pursued the task of finding a safeguarding agreement in concert with officers of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. The parties that have engaged in discussions are the Lower Bure, the Halvergate Fleet and Acle Marshes internal drainage board, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and officers of the MAFF.
The chairman of the Broads authority, in a letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment, said that it had reached the basis of an agreement but that financial compensation was missing. The Broads authority, supported by the Countryside Commission, has offered £25,000 over 20 years towards securing the agreement. Its assessment and that of the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association is that a grant of between £50,000 and £75,000 per annum, appropriately index-linked, is needed. That was put to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The drainage board made its proposals to the MAFF on the same basis.
All the many interests involved have come together and produced a compromise, the success of which depends on whether the Government can provide financial assistance so that farmers are not deprived of a source of income of which they would deprive themselves if they entered into an agreement to limit their drainage rights. I hope that the Minister will explain the Government's attitude to the issue, which is of interest not only to the Broads but to the country as a whole and conservationists the world over.

Mr. Allen McKay: Can the Minister take notice of the Control of Pollution Act 1974? Many hon. Members have come under pressure about that part of the Act which deals with water pollution. The legislation was passed seven years ago. Little has been done about the implementation of that legislation. It is needed more now than it was seven years ago, since the quality of water in


our rivers and streams is deteriorating badly. Do the Government intend to implement that part of the Act, and, if so, how long will it take?

Mr. Dalyell: A misunderstanding appears to have arisen in relation to amendment (b), and I shall confine my remarks to that. According to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), ratepayers to IDBs include people not involved in agriculture. He was worried about the additional cost of conservation that would be greatly resented by them. Surely the same is true when IDBs promote vastly expensive schemes. Conservation seldom costs additional money. It often saves money, as conservation in drainage is a case of "as little as possible".
The hon. Gentleman faces a dilemma. Maintenance works can be damaging when a capital scheme has not been carried out beforehand or when there has been a history of irregular or light maintenance works. The severity of treatment in such cases is frequently equal to that of a new capital scheme. That occurs primarily when regional water authorities adopt a watercourse as a main river, or where a capital scheme has not met the necessary cost-benefit targets. Maintenance works are frequently planned at short notice, to keep work teams employed through slack periods. Channel maintenance of areas in stretches such as the upper Severn division, without prior consultation, resulted in the removal of several other bolts. We hope that the Government will resist the amendment.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for his comments on new clause 30. We have taken note of what he said about the provision of sailing facilities by water authorities.
The hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) expressed disappointment that for conservation we had not matched, in the same words, the approach towards recreation. The House will appreciate that the terms used for recreation—
May take steps to secure the use of water and land associated with water for the purposes of recreation"—
are entirely appropriate because water authorities have control of most of the water. If we wish to ensure that water authorities take a positive step in the world of conservation, the terms that we use are appropriate to that. I hope that, on reflection, both hon. Gentlemen will feel that we have met the spirit of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) referred to maintenance. He pointed out that I said in Committee that the Government intended to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, and that I would consider whether a suitable form of words could be found that would solve the problem of defining what forms of maintenance could be excluded. We considered, as part of the solution, a form similar to that given in my hon. Friend's amendment. However, not only did that present certain legal difficulties; it left certain not wholly satisfactory positions uncovered. We therefore concluded that it would be inappropriate to amend the Bill.
I assure my hon. Friend that that does not mean that we propose to let the new clause impose an unnecessary burden on those concerned. We intend to initiate discussions at an early stage with the MAFF, the National Water Council and the NCC to clarify the best way in

which the NCC can be appropriately consulted without any cumbersome paperwork and machinery. We shall then publish to those concerned guidance that may well draw on elements contained in my hon. Friend's amendment, and will specify the types of maintenance on which consultation will be necessary. We hope to operate administratively in the sense of the amendment but to consult as appropriate.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister include in the consultations the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds as it is directly affected, along with the NCC?

Mr. Roberts: I shall consider that suggestion.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. If he cannot be more explicit now about the legal difficulties, will he write to me so that I might understand what they are? At the moment I do not understand them.

Mr. Roberts: I shall certainly do that. The Government have introduced new clause 30 because, in the light of the debate in Committee, we concluded that water authorities should be under a positive duty to further conservation, rather than having a "regard" duty under section 22 of the Water Act 1973. Amendment (b) would defeat that purpose. It would put the matter back virtually to where it was. "Furthering" would be mentioned, but the duty would once again be principally to have regard.
Some are anxious about the effect of the new clause on IDBs. It does not require either the water authorities or the IDBs to do anything inconsistent with the Acts to which they already work, namely, the Water Act and the Land Drainage Act. On the contrary, it states
so far as may be consistent".
Nor does it break with the principle underlying the voluntary agreement that when a private farmer or another person voluntarily goes out of his way to fulfil a public conservation requirement, he should be recompensed by the public.
The bodies to which the new clause applies are all public bodies exercising statutory public functions. The new clause is acceptable in calling on them to exercise their functions in a way that furthers the conservation of natural beauty, flora and fauna where their work has any real implications in those terms. I believe that the House will agree with that approach and will not favour the amendment.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend's remarks. However, does not the position remain that in relation to IDBs a few will foot the bill for conservation for the benefit of many? The nation is not paying for the cost of conservation for IDB works. It will be paid for by the ratepayers who live within the local area concerned.

Mr. Roberts: IDBs will have to further the conservation interest. We regard that as proper.

Mr. Dalyell: Let us be clear that there are a number who do not benefit at all from drainage works but, nevertheless, have to pay fairly substantial drainage rates.

Mr. Roberts: I turn to amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Rother Valley, which asks that the words
appearing to them to be
should be withdrawn. It is a nice point which hinges upon the ability of a water authority to know exactly which


works or operations might destroy or damage any of the flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features within an area notified as being of special interest. Certainly, we should expect water authorities to know that. However, we cannot be sure that circumstances will not arise in which a misjudgment is made. It appears to be more sensible to provide that there should be a contravention of the Act only where there is a deliberate intent to destroy or damage. We should accordingly allow the water authority the defence that it carried out works or operations because it appeared to it that the works or operations were not likely to harm the interests of nature conservation.

Mr. Hardy: No one wishes to put water authorities or drainage boards in the dock for committing offences that arose because they did not know what they were doing. We are trying to ensure not that the offence goes punished or unpunished but that it is not committed. It is less likely to be committed if the amendment is accepted. The purpose of the amendment is to make the NCC' s role more positive.

Mr. Roberts: We consider that we have made the right judgment. There is the recognition that the water authorities and the IDBs have to use their own judgment while meeting their obligation to further conservation.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley wanted an assurance that IDBs have legal power to spend money in pursuance of their existing conservation obligation and that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has power to grant-aid them. They already have that power. The new clause will give them a further obligation and the power to spend accordingly.
The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and the hon. Member for Rother Valley raised the important issue of Halvergate. My right hon. Friend and his agricultural colleagues are closely in touch with the current negotiations among the parties to find an acceptable solution to the conservation problems raised by the Halvergate proposal. It is recognised that it is an important issue involving the future of the Broads. They commend the activity of the Broads authority and the Countryside Commission and the co-operative arrangement, which they regard as offering the right sort of solution. All concerned are fully seized of the importance of the issues raised by the Halvergate proposal. I
understand that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food feel that an agreed outcome may materialise very soon.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful for everything that the Minister has said and for his welcome of the agreement that has been negotiated over several months with several authorities. A letter was sent to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from the drainage authority. It stated
Almost all the landowners/occupiers in the safeguarded area have been contacted and have agreed in principle, subject to reasonable compensation for the restriction of land use, to sign these agreements.
Discussions at local and regional level have failed to find a source of further funds necessary to secure the agreements and at a recent meeting of all parties in London, it was decided it would be appropriate to approach the respective Ministers.
That which has been welcomed by the Minister can be achieved only if there is central assistance to enable it to take place.

Mr. Roberts: I wish to make no further comment save to say that my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are involved in discussions at this moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

DUTIES OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS WITH RESPECT TO AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

'(1) Where an application for a grant under a scheme made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 (farm capital grants) is made as respects expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purpose of activities on land notified under section 28(1) or land to which section 29(3) applies, 1.he appropriate Minister—

(a) shall, so far as may be consistent with the purposes of the scheme and section 29 of the said Act of 1970, so exercise his functions thereunder as to further the conservation of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest; and
(b) where the Nature Conservancy Council have objected to the making of the grant on the ground that the activities in question have destroyed or damaged or will destroy or damage that flora or fauna or those features, shall not make the grant except after considering the objection and, in the case of land in England, after consulting with the Secretary of State.

(2) Where, in consequence of an objection by the Council, an application for a grant as respects expenditure to be incurred is refused on the ground that the activities in question will have such an effect as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the Council shall, within three months of their receiving notice of the appropriate Minister's decision, offer to enter into, in the terms of a draft submitted to the applicant, an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act—

(a) imposing restrictions as respects those activities; and
(b) providing for the making by them of payments to the applicant.

(3) In this section "the appropriate Minister" has the saint. meaning as in section 29 of the said Act of 1970.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

MINISTERIAL GUIDANCE AS RESPECTS AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

'.—(1) The Ministers shall from time to time, after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council and such persons appearing to them to represent other interests concerned as they consider appropriate—

(a) prepare codes containing such recommendations, advice and information as they consider proper for the guidance of —

(i) persons exercising functions under sections 28 to 31 and (Duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to areas of special scientific interest); and
(ii) persons affected or likely to be affected by the exercise of any of those functions; and

(b) revise any such code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of the code in such manner as the Ministers think fit.

(2) A code prepared in pursuance of subsection (1) and any alterations proposed to be made on a revision of such a code shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith after being prepared; and the code or revised code, as the case may be, shall not be issued until the code or the proposed alterations have been approved by both Houses.

(3) Subject to subsection (2), the Ministers shall cause every code prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (1) to be printed, and may cause copies of it to be put on sale to the public at such price as the Ministers may determine.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33

PAYMENTS UNDER CERTAIN AGREEMENTS OFFERED BY AUTHORITIES

'(1) This section applies where—

(a) the Nature Conservancy Council offer to enter into an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act providing for the making by them of payments to —

(i) a person who has given notice under section 28(3) or 29(4); or
(ii) a person whose application for farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the Council; or

(b) the relevant authority offer to enter into a management agreement providing for the making by them of payments to a person whose application for a farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the authority.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the said payments shall be of such amounts as may be determined by the offeror in accordance with guidance given by the Ministers.

(3) If the offeree so requires within one month of receiving the offer, the determination of those amounts shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State; and where the amounts determined by the arbitrator exceed those determined by the offeror, the offeror shall—

(a) amend the offer so as to give effect to the arbitrator's determination; or
(b) except in the case of an offer made to a person whose application for a farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the offeror, withdraw the offer.

(4) In this section—
farm capital grant" means a grant under a scheme made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970;
management agreement" and "the relevant authority" have the same meanings as in section 39.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34

MARINE NATURE RESERVES

'(1) Where, in the case of any land covered (continuously or intermittently) by tidal waters or parts of the sea in or adjacent to Great Britain up to the seaward limits of territorial waters, it appears to the Secretary of State expedient, on an application made by the Nature Conservancy Council, that the land and waters covering it should be managed by the Council for the purpose of—

(a) conserving marine flora or fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area; or
(b) providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into, matters relating to marine flora and fauna and the physical conditions in which they live, or for the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area,

he may by order designate the area comprising that land and those waters as a marine nature reserve; and the Council shall manage any area so designated for either or both of those purposes.

(2) An application for an order under this section shall be accompanied by—

(a) a copy of the byelaws which, if an order is made, the Council propose making under section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves) for the protection of the area specified in the application; and
(b) a copy of any byelaws made or proposed to be made for the protection of that area by a relevant authority,
and an order made on the application shall authorise the making under that section of such of the byelaws proposed to be made by the Council as may be set out in the order with or without modifications.

(3) Byelaws the making of which is so authorized—


(a) shall not require the Secretary of State's consent under subsection (1) of section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves); and
(c) notwithstanding anything in the provisions applied by subsection (4) of that section, shall take effect on their being made.

(4) The provisions of Schedule (Procedure in connection with orders under section (Marine nature reserves)) shall have effect as to the making, validity and date of coming into operation of orders under this section; and an order made under this section may be amended or revoked by a subsequent order so made.

(5) The powers exercisable by the Council for the purpose of managing an area designated as a marine nature reserve under this section shall include power to instal markers indicating the existence and extent of the reserve.

(6) Nothing in this section or in byelaws made under section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves) shall interfere with the exercise of any right of passage by a vessel other than a pleasure boat, any functions of a relevant authority, any functions conferred by or under an enactment (whenever passed) or any right of any person (whenever vested).

(7) In this section and section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves)—
enactment" includes an enactment contained in a local Act;
local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, a county council, a district council, the Greater London Council or a London borough council;
(b) in relation to Scotland, a regional council, an islands council or a district council;

relevant authority" means a local authority, a water authority or any other statutory water undertakers, an internal drainage board, a navigation authority, a harbour authority, a pilotage authority, a lighthouse authority, a conservancy authority, a river purification board, a district board for a fishery district within the meaning of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1862, or a local fisheries committee constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966;
vessel" includes a hovercraft and any aircraft capable of landing on water, and "pleasure boat" shall be construed accordingly.'—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 35

BYELAWS FOR PROTECTION OF MARINE NATURE RESERVES

'(1) The Nature Conservancy Council may, with the consent of the Secretary of State make byelaws for the protection of any area designated as a marine nature reserve under section (Marine nature reserves).

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), byelaws made under this section as respects a marine nature reserve—

(a) may provide for prohibiting or restricting, either absolutely or subject to any exceptions —

(i) the entry into, or movement within, the reserve of persons and vessels;
(ii) the killing, taking, destruction, molestation or disturbance of animals or plants of any description in the reserve, or the doing of anything therein which will interfere with the sea bed or damage or disturb any object in the reserve; or
(iii) the depositing of rubbish in the reserve;

(b) may provide for the issue, on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the byelaws, of permits authorising entry into the reserve or the doing of anything which would otherwise be unlawful under the byelaws; and
(c) may be so made as to apply either generally or with respect to particular parts of the reserve or particular times of the year.

(3) Nothing in byelaws made under this section shall make unlawful—

(a) anything done for the purpose of securing the safety of any vessel, or of preventing damage to any vessel or cargo, or of saving life;
(b) the discharge of any substance from a vessel other than a pleasure boat; or
(c) anything done more than 30 metres below the sea bed.

(4) Sections 236 to 238 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 202 to 204 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (which relate to the procedure for making bye-laws, authorise byelaws to impose fines not exceeding the amount there specified and provide for the proof of byelaws in legal proceedings) shall apply to byelaws under this section as if the Council were a local authority within the meaning of the said Act of 1972 or the said Act of 1973, so however that in relation to such byelaws the said sections shall apply subject to such modifications (including modifications increasing the maximum fines which the byelaws may impose) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Regulations under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) In relation to byelaws under this section the confirming authority for the purposes of the said section 236 or the said section 202 shall be the Secretary of State.

(6) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council, direct them—

(a) to revoke any byelaws previously made under this section; or
(b) To make any such amendments of any byelaws so made as may be specified in the direction.

(7) The Council shall have power to enforce byelaws made under this section; but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising the Council to institute proceedings in Scotland for an offence.

(8) Proceedings in England and Wales for an offence under byelaws made under this section shall not, without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, be taken by a person other than the Council.

(9) References in this section to animals or plants of any description include references to eggs, seeds, spores, larvae or other immature stages of animals or plants of that description.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 49

MAPS OF NATIONAL PARKS SHOWING CERTAIN AREAS OF MOOR OR HEATH

'.— (1) Every county planning authority whose area comprises the whole or any part of a National Park shall—

(a) before the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the commencement date, prepare a map of the Park or the part thereof showing any areas of moor or heath the natural beauty of which it is, in the opinion of the authority, particularly important to conserve; and
(b) at such intervals thereafter as they think fit (but not less than once in any year), review the particulars contained in the map and make such revisions thereof (if any) as may be requisite.

(2) The authority shall cause a map prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (1) to be printed, and shall cause copies thereof to be put on sale to the public at such price as the authority may determine.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a), in subsection (1)(a), before 'moor' insert 'coastline,'.

New clause 15—Order prohibiting the carrying out of operations on moor or heath.

New clause 16—Areas of moor or heath in National Parks.

New clause 42—Critical amenity areas.

Amendment No. 75, in clause 40, in page 38, line 29,
leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) The said conditions are—

(a) that the county planning authority have given their consent to the carrying out of the operation;
(b) that the operation is carried out in accordance with an agreement under section 37 of this Act;
(c) subject to subsection (4A) that three months have expired from the giving of the notice under subsection (3).

(4A) If before the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (4) the county planning authority offer to enter into an agreement under section 37 of this Act with the person who gave the notice under subsection (3) that paragraph shall have effect as if for the said period there were substituted—

(a) where the agreement is entered into before the expiration of twelve months from the giving of the notice, the period expiring on the day on which it AS entered into;
(b) in any other case, twelve months from the giving of the notice or three months from rejection of the offer to enter the agreement, whichever period last expires.'.

Mr. Monro: In Committee there was a lively debate on an Opposition amendment to require national park authorities to produce a map of those areas of moor or heath which, in their opinion, were of landscape significance by reason of their character and appearance. I explained that the national parks already had the power to produce such maps and I said that we should leave the matter to them. I sensed that the feeling of the Committee was in favour of placing the park authorities under a statutory duty. Therefore, we have tabled the new clause. The difference between the new clause and the amendment that we discussed in Committee is that we do not propose to require the national park authority to obtain the approval of the Countryside Commission. That is unnecessary. That does not mean that the Countryside Commission, and perhaps the NCC as well, will not need to be consulted in the course of preparation of each map. It is inevitable that they will be involved in the preparation. We do not feel that it is necessary to place a statutory obligation upon them.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Monro: I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me finish.
Nor do we propose to require the park authority to notify each owner and occupier that a map is being prepared. Our proposition is that it should be published so that everybody is aware of its existence. We are proposing that maps should be reviewed by the authorities at least once a year to ensure that they are kept up to date.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Monro: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene. Will he please let me make my speech? He can then intervene or make a speech if he chooses to do so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Monro: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman in Committee regularly and I have done so during debates on the Floor of the House. May I occasionally have a few moments to complete my remarks? When I have done so I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene,
I suspect that the Opposition will want to resume, as it were, the interesting and important debate that we had in Committee on the comments of Dr. Parry. I shall be glad to respond when I reply, if I have the permission of the House to do so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman try to persuade each of the national parks to produce maps of a comparable scale so that the various maps may be compared with one another? It would seem advantageous to have maps that can be compared nationally, and not different maps from each authority, which will not be easy to compare.

Mr. Monro: That is a sound suggestion that we shall put to the national parks when we consult them. I hope that the new clause will be accepted and welcomed by the House and subsequently enacted. It would be valuable to have all the maps produced on the same scale for easy reference and to enable everyone to assimilate as easily as possible the information that they will contain.

Mr. Denis Howell: This is possibly one of the most important debates on the Bill. It proved to be so in Committee and, looking at some of the faces of old friends from Committee, in my judgment it is likely to prove to be so again.
I must immediately disappoint the Minister by saying that I have every intention not only to speak to new clause 15 but to urge the House to vote for it. That is not to suggest that we do not recognise that new clause 49 moved by the Minister is a substantial advance upon the present position.
I shall make one detailed comment which arises from what the Minister told us about new clause 49. He is placing an obligation upon national parks to prepare, but not necessarily in statute to publish, their map. There is no obligation upon them to publish the amended map which is required every 12 months. It is absolutely vital, in view of the critical and increasing loss of moorland and heathland, which is a major disaster for conservation, that if we are to accept what is to become known as the voluntary approach, which the Minister and other Conservative Members have urged upon us, we have this minimum amount of public knowledge as to the loss of those critical amenity areas made available to us, first within two years, and subsequently annually, so that a sensible and intelligent debate can take place.
In Committee we were able to produce sensational information from Dr. Parry of Birmingham university which was hitherto not known to any of us. That information was about the loss of acres of moorland in our national parks which has proved to be disastrous. Dr. Parry advises us that the annual loss of that vital heathland and moorland in our national parks amounts to 12,400 acres per year. Those are disastrous figures. Opposition Members would like firmer legislative back-up for Ministers to tackle that continuing loss. That is what our new clause is about. Nevertheless, if we are not to have it and if the Government are determined to resist it, although I cannot for the life of me see why, at least we must have the information so that year by year, as those maps are produced by every one of the national parks, we shall be able to have sensible publicity and discussion. Then the voluntary system, which must rely on public

discussion and public argument influencing the attitude of landowners, farmers and everyone else, can make itself felt. That is the difference between the two sides of the House on this matter.
5.45 pm
I do not want to rehearse all the arguments about Exmoor again, but the House will know that this matter came to prominence in the previous Government when I held ministerial responsibility. Great alarm was caused by the actions of some farmers in Exmoor. I stress immediately that it was some farmers. I am glad to say that the influence of the National Farmers' Union and many farmers has been wholly to the public good in Exmoor. That tribute should be paid. It should also be said in fairness that they believe that the voluntary system will succeed in stopping the ploughing-up of those critical areas of outstanding natural beauty in Exmoor. They may be right in Exmoor. I can see that a considerable improvement has been made in Exmoor, but I stress immediately that the reason for that improvement has been the enormous amount of publicity and the public concern which has put the Exmoor problem into the spotlight.

Mr. Peter Mills: I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Gentleman says. There has been a combination of pressure and of seeking to get the farmers in that area to concede these matters. In my experience as a farmer, I believe that we can persuade those people and that we can do it far more effectively if we do not try to clobber them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Mr. Howell: I will bear that in mind, but in a minute I shall prove that in the national parks—not Exmoor—where we have not had the publicity or the spotlight, there has been continuing deterioration. That is a vital consideration that Dr. Parry has brought to our attention. It is absolutely essential, if the voluntary system is to work, that we have the information and the opportunity for spotlighting the problems, and promoting public information and discussion. The House will probably go along with that proposition, although Opposition Members will go further and say that our fears remain. We believe that the situation is so serious, particularly in the North Yorkshire national park and in some of the others which I shall mention in a moment, that we should give the Minister back-up powers.
The situation in Exmoor came to our attention and as a result I asked Lord Porchester to do a one-man exercise in Exmoor, which was treated with some scepticism when it was announced. However, everyone came to the conclusion that he did a brilliant job in identifying the problems there and in producing ideas for a solution. The most interesting idea was the proposal that every national park should define its critical amenity area and publish two maps. One map was to be of its areas of outstanding beauty and the second was to be one of its critical amenity area. In Exmoor that would be mainly on the highlands, which reflect our national heritage and which are areas of outstanding delight to all of us who travel down there. They have remained unploughed and in their natural state virtually for centuries. Porchester produced that novel proposal. In new clause 15 and other new clauses we are saying that we should like the Porchester concept to be written statutorily into the Bill. I cannot understand why that is being resisted.
Therefore, as I said, Dr. Martin Parry's figures are alarming. In Committee we had some discussion on where the Nature Conservancy Council got its figures. At one stage the Minister got a little cross with us. I hope that he has now been able to satisfy himself that the NCC figures, which he was relying on and which he was trying to tell us were different from our figures, came from the same survey by Dr. Martin Parry in the department of geography at Birmingham university. Therefore, I hope that at any rate we can accept the figures that I am about to give as being authentic and, as far as I know, unchallenged.
The loss in the North York Moors national park since 1950 has been 44,000 acres of moorland lost to agriculture and forestry. On any showing, that represents an extraordinary and serious loss of the amenity and heritage of this country.
In the Brecon Beacons since 1950, 24,603 acres of a similar critical amenity area have been lost. In Northern Snowdonia since 1950, 12,152 acres have been lost, and in Dartmoor in the 10 years between 1960 and 1970, 6,189 acres have been lost in the way that I described. No wonder that Dr. Parry says:
the signs are, then, that moorland and roughland have been shrinking throughout England and Wales—not just on Exmoor … if we calculate this loss as a proportion of the post-war area of moorland in the national parks and extrapolate that figure across the entire upland area of England and Wales the total is 370,650 acres …. In other words, Britain's moorlands are being enclosed are reclaimed at an average rate of 5,000 hectares (12,400 acres) per year!
That is the annual loss. That is the size of the problem. It should be totally unacceptable to any hon. Member or any organisation charged with the maintenance of our environment.
It is not correct to say that every time we get a management agreement it automatically solves the problem—although I agree that in most cases it does. I wish to say a word about management agreements. Again, they were a concept that we inherited and accepted. We fully accepted that the farming community might be encouraged by agricultural grants to plough up land that should be retained for the nation for all time as moorland heathland. If it is the judgment of the national park, the Countryside Commission, the Minister or anyone else that to plough up the land is not in the national interest, and if the farmer would otherwise get a grant to do so, there is a case for compensatory payment. That is the principle behind the so-called management agreement, whereby the farmer or landowner undertakes on behalf of the nation to manage the land and is paid to do so. I believe that that is a good bargain for the country. It is sensible to ask a landowner or fanner to look after the land. There will be a great deal of public access to it. The scheme will no doubt provide someone with employment—perhaps in the winter months repairing fencing, paths and so on—which, again, could assist the rural economy. It would also keep the land in good access, which is the object of the exercise.
The Minister has the power to stop for a period of 12 months a farmer who intends to plough. One of our amendments would extend that period. In Committee I stated that two years seemed reasonable. The Government would not accept that, but I hope that they will accept the compromise of 18 months. The reason is simple. A farmer or landowner may wish to plough and want an agricultural grant to do so, but if the Government and everyone else believe that it is against the public interest there should be power to prevent his doing so for a period to allow the

Government time to frame legislation to put before the House. I concede that 12 months is double the present period. However, if other pressures fail to work, I do not believe that 18 months or two years is too long to hold up the work so that the Government can produce legislation to deal with a case that has caused national scandal and concern. The Government would have difficulty getting legislation framed and through both Houses in 12 months.
At the heart of the matter is what we do at the end of that time with a rogue farmer or landowner who refuses to heed the advice even of the NFU or the CLA. How do we tackle that problem? In such hard cases the Government should have the necessary power, which is what new clause 15 deals with. It is inconceivable that we should allow the loss to continue at its present rate without a statutory reserve back-up power. I do not believe that such a power in any way contravenes the voluntary approach. In many walks of life we hope that people will do things with good grace and skill and in a civilised way, but we have back-up legislation with a bite to ensure that at the end of the day they do so.

Mr. Ennals: Such as the seat-belt legislation.

Mr. Howell: The seat-belt legislation is a classic case in another area. Everyone should wear seat belts. I am putting mine on at once, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I see you getting agitated.
We have agreed that that statutory back-up reserve power is necessary to deal with people who do not accept sensible advice. We are concerned about the situation at the end of the management agreement.
I turn briefly to one or two things that the Minister said in resisting the approach in Committee. On 11 June he stated:
Change elsewhere has slowed down dramatically, and or. Exmoor it has come to a full stop "—[Official Report, Standing. Committee D, 11 June 1981; c. 704.]
It has not even come to a full stop on Exmoor. One of the two agreements signed there—the Glenthorne agreement, which is welcome—saved 150 acres, but I am told that even there there was a loss of l00 acres of moorland as a result. Even on Exmoor the Minister's proposal has not turned into fact. I have already given the figures for other national parks, which show that he was totally misinformed—although I do not entirely blame him.
When we had the discussion, none of us had had the dramatic and sensational evidence from Dr. Parry. I hope that the Minister will tell us what assessment the Government have made of the evidence from the geography department at Birmingham university and of the figures disclosed. Dr. Parry offered to talk to Ministers, and I asked the Minister to get in touch with Birmingham university.
As we said, the North Yorkshire moors are particularly affected. On the figures that I have given and on the information that I have had this very day from Birmingham, the levelling off that the Minister believed had occurred has not occurred. There has been a continuing deterioration, no doubt mainly because of the lack of publicity about these matters. I concede that if maps are prepared and published this will ensure that some of the spotlight that was focused on Exmoor will be transferred elsewhere, with beneficial effects for other areas.
6 pm.
When this matter was debated in another place and upstairs in Committee this was probably the principal matter of concern, apart from the areas of special scientific interest. I judge that it still is. In another place, the sort of proposal that I make in new clause 15 was defeated by only six votes, by 97 to 91. At that time none of the new startling evidence from Birmingham was available. I believe that had their Lordships had that evidence when they took their decision, this clause or something similar would have been included, and the Government would be in serious difficulties in trying to have it removed.
As this new clause has to go back to another place, I can only hope that the Members there who took such a stand, right across the party spectrum, will think that it is still right—even if it is not agreed here today—in view of the information and evidence that we have produced, to have available a reserve power at the end of the day, so that if anyone decides to resist all the advice and wishes to plough up our natural and national heritage, he can be stopped from so doing.
I hope that the Government will agree with our approach. I suspect that they will not, but I hope that the House will press new clause 15 for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. John Farr: I congratulate the Government on introducing new clause 49, which goes a long way towards meeting the points that were made in Committee on clause 40. I believe, and probably most Conservative Members believe, that it is essential to have an up-to-date record of what is happening in the national parks, as outlined in new clause 49. The record will be kept up to date, it will have to be revised at least annually, and it will show areas of moorland or heath and how the character of the areas changes. It will be a useful addition to the armoury of those who are anxious to preserve the glorious beauty of our heath and moorland.
The report from Dr. Parry, to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) referred, and which I, too, have read, is excellent but worrying. Twelve thousand acres or more annual loss is more than anyone can accept with equanimity. I do not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about Exmoor. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Exmoor Bill in 1979 and I thought that the Porchester report of 1979 was the answer, with its compulsory moorland conservation orders and so on. But, over the two or three years since, the voluntary procedure in Exmoor has been proven to work pretty well. I should like that procedure to continue, at any rate for the time being. Therefore, I cannot support new clause 15.
What worries me very much about the moorlands in our national parks is that they do not have to be ploughed for their character to change. As I tried to illustrate in Committee, I know of examples outside national parks where, without a plough going on the land, the whole character of an area of heathland or moorland can be changed in many ways—by, for instance, excessive overstocking for many years, which will kill the heather, or by the application of fertilisers and chemicals, which will also kill it. I know of more than one example of this being done without a man going on the land. A spray applied by helicopter over two years can kill off the foliage or heather. If that is followed a year later by helicopter application of fertiliser, followed shortly thereafter by a

helicopter application of grass seed, what was a heather-covered mountain becomes in two years a grassy hillside without a machine ever going on it.
It is essential that new clause 49 should be accepted. It is an important and decisive first step that the Government have taken. Without a meticulous record being kept every year, we cannot assess for ourselves the change in the situation. I warmly congratulate the Government on what they are seeking to do.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I, too, welcome new clause 49, but I had hoped that the Government would go a little further.
It is a mistake to think that the destruction of heathland began relatively recently; it has gone on for a long time. Parliament has probably spent as long dealing with the destruction of heathland as with any other subject, going back over the Enclosure Acts of many centuries, when it was almost always a matter of enclosing heathland and converting it to agricultural uses.
A vast amount of heathland around our towns has disappeared as a result of building. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) represents an almost completely urban area, yet clearly, to judge by its name, his constituency was once one of the attractive heathlands around Birmingham. In the Manchester area many heathlands have disappeared under buildings.
Vast areas of heathland have disappeared since the 1931 land use survey, either for conversion to agricultural use or for housing estates, new schools and other buildings. I very much welcome the way in which the maps are to be produced. I hope that they will be available, so that comparisons with the 1961 survey may be made and we may have accurate information about the deterioration in the past 20 years.
A voluntary method of preserving heathland could work. Most members of the National Farmers' Union are keen that the voluntary system shall work, and we must all hope that it will, but I have grave fears that it will not. On the whole, the farmer whose family has farmed the countryside for generations is not likely—unless he is under grave economic pressure—to destroy the moorland or heathland, but there are those who are more concerned about the accounts and making a profit. Such people, who often do not have rural backgrounds, put on pressure to see every little bit of land turned to what they believe will make the biggest return in the current year or the next few years, rather than considering conservation, the protection of the land, over a period. So I fear that the voluntary system will not work, for all the words and exhortations of the NFU and farmers who care.
We shall have to look very carefully at the legislation. It has been said that it will last for 20 years. I say firmly that unless the voluntary system proves to work over the next two or three years there will be great demand in the countryside and in Parliament for new legislation. Moreover, it will not be like new clause 15 but will go much further.
It must therefore be clearly spelt out by Parliament that this is the last chance for the voluntary system of moorland and heathland conservation. If it does not work, the demand for something far tougher and more effective will be overwhelming. I therefore believe that it would be helpful to anticipate that and to accept new clause 15. If we do not, the message must be absolutely clear to


anybody contemplating any further destruction of moorland or heathland that the country will not look favourably upon that and will demand far tougher measures than these.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: The House and, indeed, the farming industry in moorland areas would do well to heed the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr Bennett). The target that he has set is clear. I make one small observation about the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). If the farmers of Exmoor responded so magnificently to what one might call the searchlight of examination from an interested public and an interested Parliament, there is no reason to suppose that North Yorkshire farmers whose land comprises moorland will not respond equally vigorously. I have every confidence that they will.
I wish to ask the Minister two small questions about new clause 49. First, in drafting the new clause, have the Government had regard to local authority expenditure in the national parks? Drawing maps at least once a year will take up limited staff and financial resources available to a national parks authority which might be better spent on management agreements and so on. Have the Government consulted the Association of County Councils on this?
Secondly, if there is a need for compulsory notification orders on areas of moor and heath in line with clause 40, will Ministers use as guidelines the maps envisaged by new clause 49?

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) is right to query the cost of maps. As he knows, local authorities, and particularly county councils in the shire counties, are at present under enormous pressure from the Secretary of State for the Environment. Perhaps some of the planning fees now corning in could be allocated for this purpose.
I, too, welcome new clause 49. It is desirable that these maps should be made and I am sure that county planning authorities within national parks will be willing to prepare them. Like other Opposition Members, however, I fear that this is typical of this country in that it is too little and probably too late. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) put his finger on the cause of concern—the economic pressures on occupiers and owners of land at this time. We must face that problem.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) will agree, farming is not going through a good period at present. The horticulturists demonstrated here on Monday. I do not know how they will go into the next season and start their planting. Farming generally, whether milk producing or corn growing, is not producing adequate returns. An enormous amount of money is due to banks and other finance houses. We are dealing only with national parks here, but I am sure that there will be pressure on all farmers to plough up more land to try to improve the returns. That is my fear. I understand their position. It is very sad. They do not want to do this. As has rightly been pointed out, every agriculturist wants to keep the country side and the moorlands, but they are under enormous pressure.
Therefore, if there is some way to preserve that land and to compensate farmers for not ploughing it up, it should be done now, as we shall not have another chance for some years. In any case, plans must be prepared and examined, so this will take several years. In the meantime,

we may well lose a further 25,000 or 30,000 acres. I believe that things are going well on Exmoor because it had very nearly disappeared. It is now a very small national park. Thousands upon thousands of acres had already been lost. We seem to have stopped it on 'Exmoor, thank goodness, but I believe that it will continue in other areas.
This matter does not affect only national parks Not far from me, on the edge of the New Forest, a landowner was ploughing up land the other day around Bournemouth—the last known home of the Dartford warbler. That land has been moorland for centuries, vet this provision does not even cover that. Moorland is being lost outside the national parks just as much as in them. I have always supported the Porchester recommendations and the earlier countryside Bill. I believe that the Opposition are right in new clause 15. I recognise that the Government have gone some way, but I wish that they had gone that little bit further.

Mr. Hardy: It is always pleasing to see changes of mind on the Government side. It is interesting to note that heaths seem more popular now among Conservative Members than two or three years ago. Perhaps, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) suggested, the farmers would share that view.
Farm incomes have dropped alarmingly and I regret, as doubtless some Conservative Members regret, that the media seem ill-informed about the plight of farmers. An article in The Observer last Sunday even described deep litter housing as "free range" That is an illustration of the inadequacies of the media. Farmers are in difficulties. The Government should therefore accept the obligation to sustain them so that they are not compelled by Government policy to ruin the appearance of the country.
I pay tribute to the Government for having moved some way in recent months. New clause 49 is better than nothing. I prefer new clause 16, however, because it has the advantage that it provides that any area of moor or heath may be designated for the purpose of monitoring moorland change. Owners and occupiers would then be notified both of the reasons for the inclusion of their land in the map and of operations which would damage it.
A voluntary code of conduct, including reciprocal notification and the opportunity to enter into management agreements, could then be established for those areas. That is superior to the Government's new clause 49, which will include land in the map only if the area is regarded as particularly important. That will create great confusion and possibly much local tension in the national parks concerned as people worry about whether their land is more important than that across the road. We should not exacerbate ill feeling in those localities.
I therefore hope that if the Government cannot accept the Opposition proposal, and if they insist upon new clause 49, they will give an assurance that the criteria for drawing up a map will ensure that as wide an area of moorland as; possible will be included. As a Yorkshireman, I am suspicious of the achievement on Exmoor. I agree that a large number of people deserve to be commended for a remarkable achievement, but one must consider what has happened in the past year or two. First, the Government did their utmost to persuade the local authorities there to provide money. Only when the authorities quite properly referred to Government policies and perhaps suggested


that they did not receive sufficient rate support grant for these purposes did the Government cough up. As a Yorkshire Member of Parliament, therefore, I must express great anxiety. Although the Government have coughed up some money for Exmoor, I wonder whether they are willing to provide similar funding for the other national parks.
North Yorkshire has been mentioned. If we continue at the present rate, the North Yorkshire moors will cease to exist within the 1980s. There will be no further justification for printing the words "North Yorkshire moors" on any map of Britain. If they are to be saved, it is not sufficient for the Government to secure advances in the common agricultural policy or whatever to promote farm incomes. They will have to provide the same kind of funding and promote similar arrangements to those which apply in Exmoor. In North Yorkshire, however, the position is now urgent, and for that reason we must go further and have reserve powers.
I turn briefly to amendment No. 75, which, with new clause 49, would provide an improvement. Clause 40 provides no safeguards, other than imposing a one-year delay, on a farmer who carries out damaging operations on moorland. Amendment No. 75 also provides for the offer of a managment agreement to be established and for discussions to take place between the landowner and the national park authority within one year.
Although that is a useful amendment, it must be emphasised that moorland can be protected against a maverick or desperate farmer only by a reserve order-making power. Let that be a long stop or a last resort, but in the immediate future we should ensure not merely that management agreements are available but that reserve powers will be taken.
I do not believe that we should tolerate during the 1980s—indeed, within the next four or five years—the obliteration of important areas such as the North Yorkshire

moors. While I welcome the Government's move, I hope that the Minister will agree that in present circumstances the Opposition's amendments are to be much preferred.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton): This is the milk in the coconut. For a long time, Governments of various complexions have set targets but have failed to provide the economic resources to achieve them. The Labour Government produced "Food from Our Own Resources", which everyone agrees was a commendable statement of policy. However, it achieved very little because they never provided the funds to enable that policy to be carried out.
Similarly, when discussing conservation, we must emphasise yet again that miserable returns in agriculture will more than anything secure the rapid ploughing up of moorland and the knocking down of fences, if that is what economic interest constrains. Fewer than 20 hon. Members are now present. The dilemma in which we so often find ourselves is the degree to which public opinion wishes conservation to be carried out but never wants to pick up the bill for so doing.
The Government are right to seek the co-operation of those whose livelihood is in the countryside and in agriculture. But we must bear in mind that the spirit and intent of the Bill will come to fruition only if another branch of the Government's policy ensures that there are fair returns for those engaged in agriculture. That is specifically enjoined in sections 1 and 2 of the original 1949 Act, which most people have either never read or have forgotten.
The ruin of much of our moorland and valuable conservation areas has probably more to do with poverty than with greed. Many farmers, particularly small farmers running their farms with family labour, suffer more from miserable economic returns than from any other factor. That point needs to be repeated because it is often forgotten by those who wish to avail themselves of the pleasures of the countryside but who do not wish to pick up the bill for its conservation.

Mr. Monro: As I expected, this is one of the important debates of the day, because there has always been a fundamental difference between those who wish to proceed by voluntary agreement and those who wish to have compulsion. It is no use talking about voluntary agreement and compulsory long-stop powers, because as soon as we have any form of compulsory long-stop powers—other than the compulsory purchase powers the NCC has always had—we take away the help and assistance we have received under the existing voluntary programme.
I accept straight away that that has been a fundamental difference between us. Although I shall try to answer all the points in detail, particularly those relating to the work of Dr. Parry, I do not think that it would be advantageous—especially as we are trying to complete a large amount of business—again to argue the difference between our approach and that of the Opposition. That has already been done both in another place and in Committee.
However, I re-emphasise that the basis of our case is that the co-operation that has been achieved between the NFU, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Parks Committee in relation to Exmoor has been extremely satisfactory. Once again, I should like to record the fact that this is a helpful step forward that will be a valuable basis for the future. It would be tragic to destroy that co-operation if at this late stage we tried to reverse a policy that is seen to work.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that ground had been lost to ploughing, but I have always said that since May 1979 nothing has been lost without the approval of the National Parks Committee. I know that ground was ploughed up before then. That is why the good work of Lord Porchester was introduced into the valuable report mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. So far as I am aware, no ground has been lost to ploughing, or as a result of a change in the use of fertiliser, since May 1979 which has not had the agreement of the National Parks Committee.
I should like to put Dr. Parry's work into perspective. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have tended to use the figures direct from the New Scientist article of May this year. 'That article mentions 12,000 acres or 5,000 hectares. However, Dr. Parry makes the point that it is a highly speculative extrapolation of the figures available for the upland areas of England and Wales.
As I assured the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in Committee, my Department has been in close touch with Dr. Parry. I shall now comment on that development. My officials had valuable discussions with him, and he has agreed the record of those discussions. However, he has not approved what I am about to say as my speech was completed only recently. In any event, the figures are taken from the agreement between my Department and him.
Dr. Parry has published the report which deals in particular with the North Yorkshire moors. He has also received full data, but not completed reports, on three other national parks—Dartmoor, the Brecon Beacons and the northern part of Snowdonia.
6.30 pm
I shall deal first with the North Yorkshire moors. The report about the park shows that the rate of loss of moorland to agriculture and forestry was over 1 per cent.

per annum in the 1950s and scarcely less in the period 1950–1979. In the more recent past, however, from 1974 to 1979 alone, the rate was 0·4 per cent. That is a substantial decline, but what should we read into that? Now that the Department has considered it carefully with Dr. Parry, it has advised me of one or two important things.
First, the aggregate loss includes afforestation as well as reclamation of moorland for agriculture. The afforestation rate seems to have been declining, whereas reclamation for agriculture has been on an upward trend. That means that the overall decline between 1974 and 1979 may not be a reliable indicator in this part, particularly as reclamation for agriculture is the main tendency in the future. Secondly, one is concerned with the amount of land. In 1974 this national park had 51,973 hectares of rough pasture, in Dr. Parry's terms. In 1979 it had 50,935, which is 850 hectares less for that period. Over the five years there has been a loss of 172 hectares per year. I accept that that is a significant loss which needs watching carefully. I understand that that is the point that Dr. Parry is trying to make.
Dr. Parry says that in 1979 the North Yorkshire moors still had 50,935 hectares of rough pasture and a completely untouched remaining moorland core of 47,000 hectares, or 116,000 acres, which has not improved within the last millennium.
Thirdly, Dr. Parry can distinguish in the North Yorkshire moors between the untouched moorland core and the rest of the rough grazing. In our view, that is the area that the National Parks Authority should preserve permanently. Dr. Parry says that primary reclamation of open moorland was still apparent in the park up to 1979, at about 100 hectares per year. Nevertheless, he says that the 47,000 hectares of moorland core has not been touched.
Dr. Parry's work shows that reclamation for agriculture in the North Yorkshire park is still continuing and is not, in all probability, on the decline. The national parks authorities should now concentrate, as Dr. Parry suggests, on conserving the untouched core. I recognise that that is a significant issue in the North Yorkshire moor, but I do not see it as immediately acute as it was in Exmoor when Porchester reported.
One must bear in mind the size of the North Yorkshire moors and the size of the moorland left on Exmoor, which is now 19,500 hectares on critical map 1.
Dr. Parry has not yet reached the stage of full report on the other three parks, but he has all the data. As hon. Members are interested, I shall give his figures quickly. In 1958 Dartmoor had 50,962 hectares of rough pasture In 1971 it was 48,872—a decline over the 13 years of 0·3 per cent. In the Brecon Beacons, similarly, over nine years the decline was 0·3 per cent. In the northern part of Snowdonia the annual rate was reduced to 0·1 per cent. I am not underestimating the fact that every acre is important, but I am trying to put it in the context of the total area of the national parks and not solely in the original figures mentioned in Dr. Parry's article.
I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind when they are considering the issues concerning new clause 49 that it will be beneficial for each national park to understand the important practical issues of loss of moorland. The new maps that we are introducing in connection with the Bill


will have an important long-term effect. They will enable us to keep a close watch on changes year by year. If the maps are to be sold, they will be published.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for his remarks on new clause 49. I agree with him that whether it is planting trees, overstocking or the use of fertilisers, change can be dramatic. We must be prepared to watch that carefully. If a similar arrangement to that successful experiment on Exmoor can be introduced elsewhere, that will all be to the good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) asked about the cost. I appreciate that it will cost the national parks some money to provide the information, but it is important that they should have it. We must bear in mind also that the national parks have substantial help from the Government through the grants system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford also asked whether, if Ministers made a moorland notification order under clause 40, the new clause 49 maps could be used as a guide. They will be a valuable guide to the national parks for that purpose. They will be useful not only to the parks but to the farmers concerned.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) generously—he has been generous throughout the passage of the Bill—mentioned the farmers who are keen to be involved in the voluntary system. However, I accept that there are bound to be one or two who will not fall in line with the majority. We believe that our voluntary approach will encourage them to do so. The work of the NFU on this subject will be valuable.
I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) that farming has had a difficult few years with rising costs perhaps going ahead of the increases in income from livestock, cereals or dairying. We do not want an additional burden on farming. That was another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Had he been on the Committee or able to join us in earlier deliberations, he would have known that we have frequently discussed provision of resources. We look forward to the planning of the Nature Conservancy Council to enable us to understand what may be required to fulfil its responsibilities, whether to the SSSIs or other aspects of conservation. I take my hon. Friend's point that it is no use saying that something should be done if we are not prepared to consider the costs, either to the nation or to the individual.
There are other amendments on the Amendment Paper covering the time scale of 18 months instead of 12, which we discussed in Committee. Whether we believe in the voluntary system, as included in the Bill and continued in new clause 49, or whether we wish to change dramatically at the last moment back to the circumstances outlined by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in new clause 15, I am confident that the policies that we have laid down and that have received such a warm welcome from those involved in agriculture, and the agreement drawn up with the CLA and the NFU, the national parks and Exmoor, are basically the way forward.
If we breach the good faith established in this regard, we may lose much more than we gain by going to compulsion. I know that the Opposition have moderated

their policy substantially from the original Bill of early 1979, but basically there is still a major difference between the voluntary approach and that of compulsion.
I am confident—as are my hon. Friends—that we shall achieve what we wish and will see a continued policy in our national parks that will conserve the habitat, enhance its beauty and, in the long term, be a real credit to our nation. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to support new clause 49 and reject the remainder of the propositions.

Mr. Denis Howell: I shall be brief. The Minister's reply is complacent and depressing. In my judgment, the matter needs careful thought. We should pay a tribute to Dr. Parry, and I am pleased to know that the Minister and his Department are in direct contact with him. He has told us that 12,400 acres of moorland are lost every year. The Department of the Environment has confirmed the figures today, and they give rise to a simple question. Are the proposals in the Government's new clause any guarantee that the astronomical loss will cease? I have listened to the Minister and, far from being satisfied, I am less satisfied and more depressed than I was before I heard what he had to say.
The Minister's remarks about the North Yorkshire moors and the whole content of his speech seem to suggest that, because we are talking about a large national park with a lot of land, it does not matter very much if we lose land in this critical amenity area at the rate that has been proved to us by Dr. Parry. I have never heard a more complacent and depressing approach to a national problem on this scale.
I hope that the Minister will think again before putting forward such an excuse. There is no evidence to suggest that the rate of loss in the moorlands is declining. That is not Dr. Parry's view. The Government are taking a period of four years from 1975 to 1979, and projecting on that basis. I am advised that it is statistically unsound to make major projections, on which Government policy will be based, over a time scale of four years when we are dealing with losses over 10 to 20 years.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surely that depends on the trend.

Mr. Howell: I am happy that the hon. Lady has mentioned the trend, because there is not the slightest evidence, outside Exmoor, that since we focused attention on these problems in 1979 the trend has improved in any other national park. That is the difficulty.
I have with me the final report on the North Yorkshire moors, upon which the Minister relies. It is by Dr. Parry and his team. Messrs. Bruce and Harkness are the co-authors and should, therefore, be named. I mention that only because of the Minister's reliance on reclamation. The report states on page 37 that although there had been an increase in land reclamation in the late 1950s and early 1960s, it levelled off by the mid-1960s and was declining again in the early 1970s. The facts about reclamation do not bear out what the Minister said.
The Opposition produced a Bill in 1979 after the Porchester report. The Bill fell because of the general election, but our attitude has not changed. We believe that it is essential to have reserve back-up powers, and I do not regard such powers as compulsion. We strongly object to the Minister's claim that the choice has to be between a


voluntary system and compulsion. We would pay farmers and landowners not to do things that the Government and the nation wished them not to do.
We accept the farmers' case and we wish to encourage their voluntary endeavour. About 98 per cent. of farmers and landowners would think it reasonable that the 2 per cent. of rogues who will not accept a voluntary system should be restrained if necessary.
A voluntary system will work only if there is a statutory back-up power. The Government concede that case when they agree that they should have a power to hold up such farmers for 12 months. We say that at the end of that year the occasional farmer who still refuses not to plough up moorland should not be allowed to get away with such anti-social action, which every right-thinking person would condemn, and that the Government should have the power to stop him.
The Government have not made their case, and I hope that after the next debate the House will insist on voting for new clause 15 to underline the importance of the proposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should we not have taken amendment (a) to new clause 49?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have been in the Chair for only a short time and I was under the impression that the amendment had not been moved. If it is desired that the amendment should be moved, the necessary arrangements can be made, but I understand that that is not the wish of the House.

Mr. Howell: It is my amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I wish it to be moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move the amendment formally, he is entitled to do so.

Mr. Howell: I beg to move amendment (a), in subsection 1(a), before 'moor', insert 'coastline,'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 124.

Division No. 293]
[6.49 pm


AYES


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Graham, Ted


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Buchan, Norman
Haynes, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon M (B'stol S)
Homewood, William


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leighton, Ronald


Dixon, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dubs, Alfred
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marks, Kenneth


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


English, Michael
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Newens, Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Prescott, John





Rooker, J. W.
Welsh, Michael


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Whitehead, Phillip


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel



Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stoddart, David
Mr. George Morton and


Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Mr. James Tinn.



Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ancram, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Moate, Roger


Biggs-Davison, John
Monro, Hector


Blackburn, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Body, Richard
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Bright, Graham
Murphy, Christopher


Brinton, Tim
Neale, Gerrard


Brooke, Hon Peter
Needham, Richard


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Neubert, Michael


Buck, Antony
Newton, Tony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Normanton, Tom


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Osborn, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Chapman, Sydney
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Cormack, Patrick
Pawsey, James


Cranborne, Viscount
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dorrell, Stephen
Prior, Rt Hon James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dover, Denshore
Rhodes James, Robert


Durant, Tony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dykes, Hugh
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Farr, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rossi, Hugh


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Scott, Nicholas


Goodhart, Philip
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Goodlad, Alastair
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gorst, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gow, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Silvester, Fred


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Speller, Tony


Gummer, John Selwyn
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hastings, Stephen
Stainton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hawksley, Warren
Stevens, Martin


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hill, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Tebbit, Norman


Hooson, Tom
Thompson, Donald


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Waddington, David


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Wakeham, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Waller, Gary


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Warren, Kenneth


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Watson, John


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Raymond


Lyell, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


MacGregor, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Major, John
Wolfson, Mark


Marland, Paul
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Marlow, Tony



Mates, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Mather, Carol
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Mr. John Cope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

RECORDING OF LOSS OF THE COUNTRYSIDE TO ALL FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT

'The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament an annual report giving details of all land formerly used for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, park, or general countryside amenity which has been developed during the previous year.'.—[Mr. Hastings.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7 pm

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Review of law on abuse of the countryside.

New clause 7—Control of development of the countryside.

Mr. Hastings: The new clauses are concerned with land loss, with penalties for despoiling the countryside, and with development. All are related, and all are relevant to one central proposition. The whole of part II of the Bill is concerned with nature conservation, the countryside and national parks. There has been a lengthy and painstaking debate about access, about what those who live and work on the land shall be required to do in or with it, and about the relative claims and ambitions of the Countryside Commission, the NCC, the CPRE and many other conservation bodies with regard to it. But nowhere during the passage of the Bill, except briefly on Second Reading, has there been any opportunity to debate the wholesale disappearance of the countryside, the causes of it, the extent of it or the consequences of it.
It is not that the Government are unconscious of the position. Answers to questions on the subject show greater awareness of the danger than there was a few years ago. But it is still far from satisfactory in my view, and what those answers disclose only confirms the basis of public disquiet about land loss. Let there be no mistake, there is growing disquiet.
I mention especially an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who I am glad to see in his place, on 1 July last. He is to be congratulated. His apprehension is entirely justified. The reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on that occasion was also important because it was the latest definitive statement of the Government on the subject.
I think I can summarise the Minister's case by saying that the Government are concerned to ensure that the minimum of agricultural land is taken. Secondly, they believe that the best way to ensure this is to make use of existing unused land in urban areas. Thirdly, the best available source of information on losses is provided by the annual census conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although this is admittedly inaccurate. Fourthly, there remains a residual figure of land loss that cannot be accounted for. Fifthly, there is a dependence for the future on the structure plans. Finally, my hon. Friend invites the House to take comfort from an assessment that only one-tenth of our land area was urban and that the land taken for housing development now appeared to be abating slightly.
The case for the new clauses depends on how successfully these objectives are being met. I want to consider this, but first I must pay full tribute to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing about unused, under-used or derelict land in the urban areas. This was the second objective of the five to which I referred.
The 27 registers and what they reveal are most encouraging, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend unreservedly on the steps that he is taking to develop the inner cities. This could be the beginning of a great advance, but by itself it will not relieve the
pressure and demand on new green field sites",
which is the stated aim, unless it is backed up by a firm policy of resistance to all forms of non-essential development in the countryside. Let us remember that my right hon. Friend's scheme is rightly and logically based on information about what is really happening. The same cannot be said, alas, of development in the countryside.
That brings me to my two complaints about the functioning of the Government's policy, first, because it is based on inadequate information and, secondly, because it is not being enforced consistently.
The figures for land loss are still staggeringly high. On 1 July, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State mentioned 100,000 acres a year which was lost to farming. He cited a high constituent figure for transfer to forestry but admitted to at least 30,000 acres to urban development. Incidentally, that figure contrasts oddly with an answer given me on 10 July to the effect that the total loss of farm land to all forms of development in England and Wales was 9,282 hectares, which I make only 22,935 acres. There must be some confusion here. Perhaps my arithmetic is at fault.
At the same time, my hon. Friend said nothing about the loss of land to motorways and major road works, nothing about coal mining, either now or projected, nor about other extractive industries, and nothing about the depredations of the water boards and the miscalculations that they undoubtedly have made. Perhaps he had no time to do justice to these other matters in the Adjournment debate; but he did mention this unexplained loss, which he put at 20,000 acres, of farm land to dereliction. He termed it "horseyculture", and I shall return to that a little later in my remarks.
In reply to my last series of questions on 10 July, I was told that no separate figures existed for the loss of farm land to roads or mineral workings in England and Wales, but only a total. That seems strange. If the total is known, surely there must be some idea about how it is made up. The answers also indicated that there were no figures for the loss of forestry or of countryside amenity but only of farm land. I could cite other official figures over recent years which demonstrate apparent discrepancies as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North spoke of the current loss as amounting to the disappearance of a county the size of Dorset every six and a half years. I have myself cited a county the size of Leicestershire disappearing every five years. It takes these frightening extrapolations to bring home to people what seems to be happening, and therefore I take no comfort from the knowledge that only one-tenth of the land surface is now urban. If the process continues, it is no wild assertion to say that our entire stock of improved farm land will disappear in 200 years—and then what price the


Countryside Commission, the SSSIs and all the grand plans for access and conservation, leaving aside who is to feed us?
I want to discuss the subject of structure plans for a moment, because this constitutes an important part of the Government's policy. On 1 July, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that they
set the pattern for the future use of land. I suggest that they are an important guide in setting out area by area the way in which land should be used and the purposes for which it should be used."—[Official Report, 1 July 1981; Vol. 7, c. 986.]
That is all very well, but when I asked on 10 July what was the likely total loss of farm land and countryside if the structure plans were implemented fully, my hon. Friend replied:
structure plans are not required to express policies in terms that enable such an eitimate to be readily made."—[Official Report, 10 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 251.]
In other words, plans are to be made without any prior requirement to signal the probable loss of the countryside involved. I cannot think that this constitutes the best way of meeting the Government's objectives. This is planning without proper information, and it leads to the practice of moving and manoeuvring people and economic activity in accordance with hypothetical predictions, and this must risk unnecessary loss of the countryside.
I take an imaginary example of a country town—call it "Muddletown"—which is required to produce a suggestion for the local structure plan. The planners make it known that because of present trends they believe that the population of "Muddletown" in the 1990s will be so many and that therefore it will need so much new development and infrastructure to meet the increase, and so much land will be required for that.
To my mind, this is to ensure that the development will take place. No one can say what the size of the population of "Muddletown" will be in the 1990s if it is left alone. But the existence of that plan will bring the increase about. This may be planning, but it is not planning for the conservation of the countryside. The admirable logic of military orders, as every soldier knows, is based on the sequence of information, intention, method. Here, under the guise of town and country planning, we have what looks to me more like method, generally related to intention, followed by an attempt to find out what has happened.
I do not underestimate the difficulty in obtaining the information required by new clause 5. It will involve a lot of work. But it is done elsewhere. There are land use maps available in Holland, and I am told information available in Scotland is much better than it is in England and Wales.
A year ago I asked my right hon. Friend how many planning officers were employed in the Department of the Environment and by local authorities. The answer was 108 in the DOE and no fewer than 22,350 employed by local authorities in England and Wales. Is it really impossible that a proportion of this massive establishment could not be instructed to turn its efforts to producing the information that is required under new clause 5? The Land Council was formed some two and a half years ago by a number of people much better qualified than I to judge these matters, with precisely this objective in mind. I suggest that the Government might make use of their ideas for this purpose.
My second complaint is that the policy of conservation professed by my hon. Friend is not being enforced in all Departments. If I am right, the information that is

available on land loss, first, to motorways and major roads and, secondly, to the extractive industries is inadequate. There is, therefore, all the more reason to be careful. I shall give a typical example in the first category. At present, there is a proposal to construct an A1—M1 link in Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire. At the same time work is progressing on the improvement of the A45, also in Northamptonshire, which happens to be an A1—M1 link. The Northamptonshire county council sensibly suggested that the improved A45 could do the job. The loss to agricultural land would have been nil. But no, the Department turned that down and came up with some engineer's dream—a great two-lane motorway flung straight across the county, with an estimated loss of 700 acres of farmland. In addition to that—and apparently as an afterthought—there is now an added scheme for another branch from the A45 to the Department's route, straight across the same country, involving a further loss of 100 acres. If the Government are serious in their objectives, that sort of wilful consumption of the countryside has got to be stopped.
I turn to the extractive industries, the second category that I mentioned. I cannot conceive that if, as it appears, my right hon. Friend had decided to spare the Vale of Belvoir, he will change his mind because of threats from the miners' union. That would make a farce of the whole Bill. Now, I read in The Times of today that 108 square miles of Warwickshire are also threatened by the National Coal Board. I have no doubt that the NCB is among the voracious and sometimes irresponsible consumers of the countryside.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid. point, but he may be overlooking the fact that in many areas there has been a great advance in land reclamation. In many areas, including South Yorkshire, there has been a remarkable transformation over the past four or five years because spoil heaps have been reclaimed, often in an extremely attractive manner. Our technical capacity to reclaim spoil heaps and return land to agriculture and rural purposes is now most commendable. Foolishly, that factor is frequently ignored.

Mr. Hastings: I myself see evidence of that. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) is right when he says that efforts have been and are being made. However, in my opinion they are quite inadequate. Claims that have been made for the fertility of the soil which is supposed to have been reclaimed are often grossly exaggerated. Some of the farmers who try to farm that land would not entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, although I accept that much has been done.
I come to new clause 7. The danger of land loss is increased by the new division of responsibility for planning and development between the district councils and the county planning authorities. There is no doubt that the ability of the county councils to protect their development plans has been seriously weakened by last year's Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Act. Since then, there have been examples of farm land taken by district councils against the structure plan, and despite the safeguards. In another place there was an unsuccessful attempt to amend that legislation. My new clause, or something similar, could restore the position.
7.15 pm
Finally, I come to new clause 6. My hon. Friend, in his speech of 1 July, was concerned, and rightly so, at the


unexplained land loss to which I have already referred, and which he estimates at 20,000 acres. On Second Reading, I went into some detail about the survey that had been conducted by Dr. Alice Coleman and Mrs. Inga Feaver of London university for Farmers Weekly into urban pressure on farms. I shall not go into all that again. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is studying it, and I am grateful to him. It discloses a record of abuse, cruelty and hooliganism of horrifying extent. It occurs around nearly all the major urban concentrations and much of it goes unreported, undetected at the time, and unpunished. The total area of land placed under severe constraint by these abuses is estimated at over 11,000 acres. I take that as a serious estimate. It applies only to land that is affected by the 600-odd farmers who replied to the questionnaire that was sent to them. In addition to that loss, one must add the extra cost of time spent on surveillance, or paying for surveillance, and also the soaring insurance premiums which farmers suffer in these areas and must pay.
That is the genesis of the "horseyculture" of which my hon. Friend spoke on 1 July. The frontiers of farmable land around our cities are being steadily rolled back, leaving dereliction. Indeed, 20,000 acres is almost certainly a serious underestimate of the true position.
Most landowners and farmers, in my experience, are balanced and reasonable people who well understand the need for access to the countryside. However, they must be given protection against the abuses that are undeniably clear from the survey and from other evidence that I have come across since it was published. That is the reason for new clause 6. It is a question not simply of new penalties but of magistrates giving adequate penalties under existing law. I hope that the Government will require them to do so in future, and I am far from persuaded that they do so today.
I hope that I carry the House with me on the need for the three new clauses—new clause 5, because of inadequate information about what is happening to the countryside; new clauses 5 and 7, because the Government's policy is not being consistently or sufficiently firmly enforced; and new clause 6, because of the pressures on farmers in the urban fringe.
When I consider the Bill, and all the work that has been done on it by hon. Members on both sides, in the context of the loss of the countryside, I feel that we are like the crew of a stricken ship, arguing down in the hold about the division of the cargo while the vessel founders slowly about us with no one on the bridge to try to stop the catastrophe.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on the new clause. I support new clause 5, and hope that he will press it to a vote. I also support new clauses 6 and 7.
Almost everyone in the country, and certainly all hon. Members, pays strong lip service to the idea of conserving the countryside and stopping the urban sprawl taking it over. Nevertheless, having expressed that general view, when it comes to a particular there is almost always an overriding and pressing reason why a development should take place. Everyone is in favour of conserving the countryside, but in practice they do not conserve it.
Many people dream about having a cottage situated in a field, with trees and hedges around it. It is that dream

that many housing developers try to emulate, and they destroy the dream at the moment when they start building. They do not look for a vacant site within an urban area. They look on the edge of the urban area, somewhere that has an attractive view, with trees, perhaps a stream, and that is where they go. They do so often because it is cheaper to build there but also because they know that the completed houses will offer to the would-be purchasers something approaching their dream. Time after time people buy houses on the urban edges, with fields around and with a view, and five or six years later the next patch is developed. Gradually they find themselves back in an urban environment, and a bit more of the countryside has been lost. Not only are buildings involved. Sometimes two or three fields are taken over for development. That reduces the viability of the rest of the farm. The farmer ceases to farm the land. He lets it to a farmer some distance away. It is difficult to look after and children sometimes cause mischief. Gradually the land becomes derelict.
It is important to try to stop the urbanisation of the countryside. We should also try to bring back the countryside into our towns. There have been some interesting developments with so-called town farms. However, that nearly always means keeping livestock within the urban environment. Only rarely does it involve the re-creation of fields. I know that it is difficult to bring derelict land back to agricultural use. It is extremely expensive, but we should examine the possibilities.
The Coal Board has been attacked for the way in which it has eaten up the countryside. I am concerned about the number of spoil heaps, but the board's record is better than that of many other mineral extractors. Sand pits can often create attractive recreational facilities when water is left after the extraction of sand, but, again, agricultural land is lost. In many areas of the Peak District the scars left by the extraction of limestone mar the landscape as much as coal tips. It is almost impossible to turn such land back to agricultural use. It is much less likely to be successful than the NCB's efforts.
New clause 6 ranges wide. I support attempts to stop abuses of the countryside. I am particularly concerned about the way in which dogs from towns worry sheep and cause havoc among other livestock. Such incidents make it harder for farmers to continue to farm on the urban fringes. I abhor the abuse caused by youngsters with air-guns who go out supposedly to shoot at vermin but end up shooting at anything that moves. If they cannot find anything that moves, they shoot at the street lights. There are many other abuses, and I welcome measures to stop them.
This is an opportunity to come back to the question of hedgerows which are being grubbed up in large numbers. That is another major abuse. The extension of forestry has caused a great deal of concern. The way in which roads spread into the countryside is also a problem. I refer not only to major roads and motorways but to the widening of existing roads. It is amazing how often, when a bend is cut from a road to make the road better, the old bend is either made into a layby or left derelict. It is expensive to take a piece of land from a farmer and to return the piece on the bend to him in such a state that he can use it. We should consider the problem because often such land is used as a rubbish tip and becomes a major nuisance.
We must examine planning within the countryside. Planning is also subject to abuse. It is amazing that, although we can control advertising signs on shops and


hoardings in the urban environment, farmers are allowed to erect buildings which totally alter the appearance of the countryside. I realise that cost is involved in putting up buildings that blend with the countryside, but outside national parks many abuses occur. Some farmers obstruct walkers and others who want to enjoy the countryside.
Another abuse involves land held by the Services. A great deal of land was taken over by the Services during the First and Second World Wars. They were able to take over the land without much inquiry because it was considered to be in the national interest. The needs of the Services in terms of the amount of land held have changed. However, they hold on to vast areas of land, sometimes because there is live ammunition or bombs on it, but they have no real need for it. We should spend a little money on reclaiming such land and bringing it back to agricultral or amenity use. That should reduce some of the pressures on other parts of the countryside.
The legislation has been discussed for almost two years. It has been going through Parliament for over nine months. Much public interest has been aroused. The fines and penalties in the legislation are perhaps not as important as arousing the public conscience. We should investigate ways of continuing the debate and getting people interested in the issue.
That is one of the attractions of new clause 6. It calls for continued discussion and for the Government to bring back to the House proposals to deal with the type of problems to which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred, and to which I have referred briefly. It calls for discussion of the many other problems raised by the Bill so that they can be considered in the next 12 months and perhaps legislated upon. The big danger is that once the legislation is passed people will think that something has changed. Nothing will change unless attitudes change and people carry out the spirit of the legislation rather than the letter of the law.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome the chance to speak to the new clauses. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on the way in which he moved the new clause and, more than that, on taking such an important role for many years in seeking to preserve agricultural land and delving into the problems. He has done a good job.
I fully support new clause 5. Annual reports seem to be right and useful to a large number of people, not just to those who are concerned about the loss of agricultural land. We should know exactly what is going on. We should know, the amount of agriculture, forestry and park land being lost. The loss is more serious than people realise.
I declare an interest as a farmer, although most people know that I am a farmer. In the South-West of England we are desperately anxious about the loss of good agricultural land. It is said that land lost is usually the better land. The higher grade land round our towns and other places is being lost. In the South-West there is a constant threat to our beautiful land which is used for food production. It is being lost to concrete, reservoirs and roads. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows how concerned I am about the flooding of hundreds of acres of land at Roadford and Higher Horselett for reservoirs. It is nonsense to think of doing that at this time. It is beyond my understanding why we should continue to allow that loss of agricultural land.
7.30 pm
It is quite wrong to build huge dual carriageways simply to cope with peak demands on a few Saturdays in the holiday season. We need good, improved roads with passing areas so that the heavy lorries can keep to the crawler lanes and motorists can pass them. To use so much agricultural land for those roads is a sin.
A large development is taking place at Plymouth which is coming into my constituency in the South Hams. It is using up some of our high grade land. It is wrong to put houses there when there is plenty of waste land available. We could even reclaim land. An annual report on the loss of agricultural land would be immensely useful in the South-West.
I cannot understand why so many good people are concerned about the preservation of areas of outstanding beauty and rare types of butterflies and animals—concerns that I fully support—but never give a squeak about the loss of agricultural land. That is a sad fact. I am not accusing Opposition Members in particular. I receive letters from people concerned about the loss of the lesser blue spotted tit, or some such thing, or about land being ploughed, but never do I receive letters about the loss of prime agricultural land, even though it produces food. I think that I am justified in making that complaint. I am concerned about both aspects. I wish that others were similarly concerned.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because people do not write, it does not mean that they are not concerned? Most of those who write to him about the preservation of various species or land would also write about the loss of agricultual land if they thought that that issue was in dispute. They believe that everyone is in favour of conserving agricultural land. The sad fact is that that does not happen.

Mr. Mills: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Those concerned about the loss of a rare bird or butterfly should be concerned also about county councils and the Department of Transport putting concrete on land and the South-West water authority flooding land. They do not write about that, and that is my concern.
Most agriculturists—I speak as one—are concerned about our national heritage of agricultural land. They are concerned also about the preservation of species and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Only a few of them are not concerned. It is unfair that the general impression gained is that farmers are not concerned with the preservation of all that we are discussing tonight.
I do not know whether my next remarks will be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that if they are not you will stop me. Farmers want to ensure that the NCC has sufficient finances to deal with conservation in the proper manner. It is no good introducing legislation if there is insufficient finance to deal with it. There could he a serious problem if sufficient finance is not provided by the Government.
I welcome new clause 7, which refers to
waste land and other available land in the vicinity … completely unsuitable for such development.
It is important to use waste land and poor land for new housing and factories before using good clean, virgin agricultural land. I hope that the planners will consider the issue carefully. I realise that it is easier to build a new


housing site on a completely new site—that is obvious—but, in the interests of food production, older and derelict sites should be used first.
I hope that everyone realises that we cannot continue to lose agricultural land. Future generations will need the food that it produces. The present generation has much to answer for, with the loss of thousands of acres of land every year. Food production is still crucial. Food is the basic item that we need to produce in a hungry world. It is wrong to continue in such a wasteful manner.
I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench. I know that he is concerned about these matters. I hope that he will take to heart sincerely the real difficulties and the sin of flooding food-producing land for reservoirs and the terrible loss of good agricultural land for houses and roads. It is a crucial issue.

Mr. Hardy: Like the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I believe that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) for introducing these important clauses. I hope that the Government will accept them. Their merits speak for themselves.
The hon. Member for Devon, West referred to reclaiming land. That reminds me that some of us have argued that one of the advantages of the Vale of Belvoir coalfield is that the relatively small amount of dirt that would come up with the coal could be moved to his constituency to fill some of the holes left by the brick industry. Some of the holes could remain for conservation reasons. That is an example of the sort of land reclamation to which he referred.
I do not quite share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North for the return of Ministry of Defence land to agricultural or other uses. When I was piloting the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 through the House, I was vexed and concerned about the plight of the natterjack toad. Shortly after the Bill was enacted I discovered that the gentleman responsible for MOD land had permitted the breeding of the natterjack toad and that several thousand had been released. Had the House known that fact' when it considered the Bill, it is probable that the list of protected species in schedule 1 would have been somewhat shorter.
The House should be concerned about the loss of agricultural land. I hope that that concern will be expressed to the point that we discourage farmers from using heavy machinery that affects the soil structure. To use such machinery means that the hedgerows are removed and fields enlarged. In the end, that may not produce more food, and may even contribute to producing less.
The new clauses are important. New clause 6 touches on a significant matter. I recall that in Committee I said that the House would have to recognise that enforcement was important, and that therefore the NCC and other public bodies should be given adequate capacity to enforce the law.
If the new clause is accepted—and I hope that it will be—the promised review may lead the Government to assume that enforcement should receive greater priority. I have often said that in countryside matters one cannot have sufficient policemen to stand guard over every rare

place and every acre of farm land. We must give public bodies the capacity to advise and to ensure effective enforcement of the law.
That leads me to a suggestion that I made in Committee that the Minister did not accept. I hope that at some stage—this will probably happen, if the new clause is accepted, when the review takes place—the Minister will ensure that his colleagues in other Departments consider the proposition that in every police force one officer should be appointed to act as link man with the Nature Conservancy Council and perhaps with the voluntary bodies to ensure that the law is properly enforced.
One of the problems is that, with all the good will in the world, police forces may not have officers with sufficient contacts, knowledge and experience to carry out the function that I have described. The result is that several Acts have not been properly implemented. I think that my proposal would cost nothing. The evidence in Canada and one or two other countries demonstrates that it is a worthwhile suggestion. If the new clause contributed to that enforcement and to our legislation being more effective, the House would have performed a real service in putting it into the Bill.
I hope that the three new clauses will be accepted. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has chosen a good time to offer us new clause 7. We are now able more easily to protect our countryside than at any time over the past 30 years. If the Minister considers the structure of the population and the falling birth rate, he must conclude that the voracious consumption of agricultural land is no longer justified. Given the size of the secondary school population, we can properly assume that the demand for housing by the early and middle 1990s will inevitably fall.
I suggested mischievously not so long ago that one reason for the Conservative Party embracing the principle of council house sales is that in many areas the populations may decline, and it prefers to pull a fast one on council house tenants rather than leave local authorities lumbered with the cost of unoccupied houses. I do not wish to spoil the debate by introducing such a partisan note. I merely say that the new clauses are splendid. I hope that the Government will have enough sense to accept them. If they do not, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will divide the House.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I support the new clause. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) for referring to the Adjournment debate that I initiated on the subject on 1 July. I agree with the comments made so far.
First, in the words of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), we need a completely different attitude to the loss of agricultural land. I understand that the Department of the Environment regards the problem as serious. However, I do not believe that local authorities do. The same can be said of the House. I am sure that the public do not apprehend, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said, that we face a serious problem.
7.45 pm
Secondly, the loss of agricultural land, like the pressures created by population increases, is at the heart of many of the problems with which we are trying to deal. Too often we are dealing with the results of problems rather than the fundamental causes. There is pressure on farmers to use more chemicals on their land and to adopt


factory farming methods. Small farmers have difficulties, as do those who wish to enter farming. At the heart of these problems is the disappearance of the farmer's raw material—agricultural land.
We have been discussing the disappearance of wildlife and natural habitats. Surely the fundamental cause is the disappearance of agricultural land and hence pressure on other land. I have in mind hedgerows and marginal land. The only note of discord that I strike with the hon. Member for Stockport, North is my contention that the Ministry of Defence has often acted as a good conservator of natural habitats and wildlife. That is principally because it insulates wildlife from depredations by the rest of the population. We must recognise that the countryside is fast disappearing in the South of England.
Thirdly, I am sure that the vital first step is to try to identify clearly how much land is disappearing. I support and applaud my right hon. Friend's work in identifying waste land. That is one way of dealing with one end of the problem. In the Adjournment debate on 1 July, my right hon. Friend more or less admitted that a large area of land that had not been identified was disappearing. That is no longer tolerable. I support the planning restrictions in the new clause. Local authorities should be required carefully to examine their waste land and structure plans before giving planning permission. Agricultural land is a vital national resource, and the new clauses go some way to preserving that asset.

Mr. Farr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on calling attention to an important problem and on moving the new clause so well. The gravity of this issue can be gauged when one remembers that for many years about 1,000 acres a week of agricultural land has been lost to agriculture. On average 50,000 acres a year, or slightly more, has been taken from agriculture.
I support what my hon. Friend said about new clauses 5, 6 and 7. I have a good example to give the House. It involves Leicester. For some time the Leicester authorities have been worrying about what to do with large areas of former housing land which has lain derelict for some considerable time. It covers many acres. On the outskirts of Leicester, to the south of the city in my constituency, hundreds of acres of virgin farmland are under application by would-be developers for housing. All that my hon. Friend and I want is sensible and regulated use of such land. Surely someone should not be allowed to spoil it in some way and then look for more. I do not believe that that can be allowed to happen in the late twentieth century. The House must encourage more disciplined usage of land in all its forms.
My hon. Friend referred cogently to the extravagant land requirements of motorways and new road schemes. He spoke with great authority about the Al-M1 link road. I mention it for almost the same reason. It is due to blaze across the middle of Northamptonshire. I have often said that it seems that Department of Transport planners in London decide that they want a road to connect points A and B and they join them on the map by means of a ruler. At a much later stage they send teams to the district to ascertain whether there are alternatives. An example is the A45, which has been improved dramatically. It is a first-class dual carriageway that runs through East Anglia. The A45 could be used as an alternative.
About the only Department of State, apart from the Ministry of Defence, which has not suffered economies is the Ministry of Transport—especially its road building department. That is booming. Top of the list for economies should come this wasteful and extravagant Al-M1 motorway which will cover 800 or 900 acres of first-class agricultural land in Northamptonshire. With the A45 to the south, coupled with an improvement to the A427 to the north, which would ease congestion in Leicestershire and which would have to be provided quickly to relieve Corby and towns such as Market Harborough, the link road is unnecessary. Improving existing roads and forgoing the motorway would give speedy relief to the villages in my constituency and encourage new firms to go to Corby. It would avoid a long timetable—perhaps over eight or nine years—for the Al-M1 link road. As a result, about 800 acres of unspoilt virgin countryside would remain.
My next point concerns reservoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) mentioned the wasteful use of much agricultural land for reservoirs. The preservation or conservation of land seems to be at the bottom of the planner's list of priorities. I have a classic example. My hon. Friend gave some examples from the West Country. My example is Rutland Water, which covers half of Rutland. It would never have been built if we had gone ahead with the Wash barrage scheme. which was in preparation. A barrage across the Wash would have used the present wasted land in the Wash for fresh water storage. The beautiful county of Rutland would have been left undisturbed, and its agriculture would have flourished instead of being under what is now proudly boasted as the biggest man-made lake in Europe.
I feel strongly that the new clauses of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, although we do not have much time to deal with them, are probably three of the most important new clauses which the House will ever consider. We are seeking a sensible, not a greedy, approach to future land use by all concerned, including local authorities. In Committee—possibly rightly in some cases—agriculture and farmers were often clobbered for wasting or destroying SSSIs. Often, in my experience, first an SSSI is degraded by a big new housing estate being built in the vicinity. The quality of the water is polluted and the habitat is destroyed. Once the quality of that SSSI is degraded, the farmer probably sells the land for development and, as has happened in my constituency more than once recently, a developer comes along, fills in the lake or pond in the SSSI and uses the land as a building site. So far as we can and within reason, we must curb the urban sprawl in a sensible and knowledgeable way. I fully back what my hon. Friend said today.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I have listened to all the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), whom I congratulate on his speech. I agree with virtually everything that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I shall add briefly a crucial point which should be raised in the debate. We all, perhaps belatedly, are aware of the loss of agricultural land for urban purposes. The loss is greatest where town has encroached on the countryside. It has been at its most acute in one real sense around our great metropolis because it is the greatest conurbation in the country.
We are about to surround the metropolis with the M25 orbital motorway. I agree that we should have the M25. In any case, it would be late for me to suggest that we should not. However, there is no doubt from the history of motorways in this country that they act as magnets for industrial and residential development and to help the smooth flow of transport. New clause 7 is vital if we are to be able to preserve the agricultural land immediately surrounding our metropolis.
Even if new clause 7 is not suitable for other parts of the country—I believe that it is—it is vital for the future land use planning in the South-East in general and around our metropolis in particular. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who I know is sensitive to questions of land use and who is in sympathy with many of the points which have been made, will bear in mind the particular problem which will be caused by the M25. I thank the Almighty that that motorway passes my constituency a mile to the north.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on the way in which he has introduced what by general agreement on both sides of the House is an extremely important debate.
I may have misheard one or two interpolations suggesting that this debate was not relevant to the Bill. How we can have a Wildlife and Countryside Bill in which the loss of the countryside cannot be a relevant issue I find difficult to establish. My hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to table three new clauses on this subject. Anyone familiar with the proceedings of the House and its Members will know that my hon. Friend has taken an extremely active interest in the matter for a considerable number of years and has chaired a committee which has been active on this subject.
We should start from the recognition, which has been endorsed by a number of hon. Members, that this is an issue which should concern the House and the whole country. My hon. Friend has done a service to the House by the way in which he has drawn attention to the issues involved. He faced some difficulty over the figures about the scale of the problem. Part of that difficulty may flow from the well-known problem that he may be comparing the United Kingdom statistics with the England and Wales statistics. I think that he will find that his 30,000-acre figure comes from the United Kingdom figures and that the 22,000-acre or the 10,000-hectare average loss comes from the England and Wales figures. I believe that no time need be spent on the argument about the exact figure, whatever it is. It is a figure of such a dimension that it is right that the House should be seriously concerned about it.
New clause 5 proposes a system of recording the land loss every year—for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual report. Such a system would raise technical problems. Would it be done through local authorities, which do not necessarily have the information? At present the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food collects and publishes information. The information that I gave about the average loss of some 10,000 hectares per annum over the past five years comes from the figures

assembled by the Ministry. However, I entirely share my hon. Friend's view. The system is not satisfactory. We must improve the recording and identification of land loss.
8 pm
For some time we have been actively investigating alternative ways in which that might be done. One of the more interesting ways of conducting a survey, which may prove to be the most cost-effective, may be a somewhat twentieth century solution—satellite imagery. Extremely interesting work is being done by my Department, in conjunction with the cartographic section, using infra-red capacity through satellite imagery. Some hon. Members may have seen the maps that show the state of land. If the new development can be taken to a successful conclusion, it may be an extremely effective way of producing an up-to-date, nation-wide survey of exactly what is happening about land use.
I shall not take the House into the full scientific background, but if any hon. Member is interested I shall be more than happy to supply him with initial maps and pictures which show how the technique might be developed. In view of my hon. Friend's interest, I shall certainly ensure that he receives samples. That is one possibility that we are investigating.
I wish to make our approach on each new clause clear. Although I am not able to accept the detail in the new clause, the substance of what my hon. Friend has put before the House is essential. We must identify an effective and cost-effective way to produce the information. I give my hon. Friend the clear undertaking that we intend to pursue the matter. We have already made progress.
The only question to consider is whether the House wishes to have an annual report. That might more easily be done by using the technical methods that I have described, but, although the total sum is quite large, it is a small percentage change in any one year, so there may be arguments for suggesting that the report may be every two or three or even every five years. That question will have to be examined. The recording and identification of land loss is something to which we attach particular importance. I hope that the fact that I can tell my hon. Friend of the progress that we have made assures him that I am not saying something convenient for the debate but that it is a matter to which we attach great importance.
New clause 7 concerns planning. It suggests:
A local planning authority shall not grant planning permission
for land that has been in agricultural and other uses unless
such development is in accordance with the provisions of the development land in force for that area for the time being, or is an essential departure therefrom; and … that all wasteland and other available land in the vicinity is completely unsuitable for … development.
My hon. Friend may suspect that the way that the new clause is drawn would produce appalling fuses throughout the planning system. I cannot accept it as it stands, but the truths contained in it are the cornerstone of our approach.
The principle is, first, to make sure that the structure plan works, and that there is departure from it only in the most exceptional case. It is important to ensure that we do not lose good agricultural land when there are vacant inner city or urban derelict sites available. That is fundamental to the future planning of the country. I do not believe that one hon. Member would dissent from it. In the past not


nearly enough has been done to that end, and we have now taken a number of steps to try to achieve it. I hope that we can go further.
Let me say a few words to instance how we see that developing. First, there are the planning circulars. The original circular on development involving agricultural land passed by the Labour Government in 1975–76 required planning to ensure that, as far as possible, land of a higher agricultural quality is not taken for development where land of a lower quality is available, and that the amount of land taken is no greater than is reasonably required for carrying out the development in accordance with proper standards.
We have gone on from there. The most recent circular that we issued—No. 22 of 1980—dealt with the extension of urban developments into the countryside. We emphasised:
The bulk of future development must take place both by rebuilding within existing towns and by expanding the towns within the limit; of employment… infrastructure and social facilities. In considering proposals for development which involve the expansion of an existing town, regard should first be had to the amount of suitable cleared but undeveloped land within the town.
Expansion of a town into the surrounding countryside is objectionable or planning grounds.
The circular then considers such cases. It is also objectionable if it conflicts with national policies for the protection of the environment. It cites a number of factors, including the safeguarding of good farming land. It goes on to say:
Such an objection would normally rule out development unless the circumstances of the case are such that there is an exceptional need to make land available for housing.
I know that my hon. Friend's new clause includes the phrase
or is an essential departure therefrom".
Although we might quibble about the wording, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that the circular very much embodies views that he has expressed to my right hon. Friend and to me many times, and which, as he will know, we had very much in mind in the writing of that circular. I stress to all right hon. and hon. Members that a planning circular is the guidance of my Department to every planning inspector, who is required to observe the guidance contained therein. It therefore has considerable impact on planning development.

Mr. Hastings: I have been listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. Will he give some guidance to the House on the additional freedom of action on planning matters that was conferred on district councils last year which has led to a loss of land that should have been prevented?

Mr. King: I was about to embark on that aspect. I was disappointed by my hon. Friend's comments on it, because I have not had such instances drawn to my attention. If instances have been drawn to his attention, I should be grateful if he would let me see them. I proposed to explain to the House the background to this and my hope that that should not be the situation.
We thought last year that it was more sensible for development control to be the clear responsibility of the district council, and we built in important safeguards concerning the responsibilities of a district council in relation to a county council and in relation to the protection of the structure plan. The local authority is required to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State any

departure that materially conflicts with or prejudices the implementation of policies or general proposals for the structure plan. We have the power to call in the application for our decision if we wish. It is open to the county council to make representations to us at any time if it considers that any departure should be referred to the Secretary of State.
A code of practice has been jointly agreed between county councils and district councils as to how this procedure should be operated. I am therefore most anxious to know of cases where it is not working, as we should like to investigate them further. As my hon. Friend knows, there are also requirements under the general development order to consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about any "departure" application that involves the loss of more than 10 acres of agricultural land. These proposals, under our present controls, are the most sensible way of approaching planning arrangements.
I should like to say a word about new clause 6, relating to vandalism and other abuses of the countryside. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has written to my right hon. Friend, drawing his attention Ito a written survey conducted by Dr. Alice Coleman and Dr. Inge Feaver about these problems, and we also discussed the matter in Committee. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) drew attention to many of the problems, and he proposed an amendment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball), in connection with the worrying of sheep, which is one aspect of this abuse.
In his new clause my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire asks for a review of the offences connected with the abuse of the countryside. It is not a review that we need. As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said, the problem is enforcement, because the offences are well understood and we have the legislation to deal with them. We need to address ourselves to the problem of enforcement not just in the sense of attempting to analyse some of the problems and issues at stake.
My hon. Friend may be aware that the Countryside Commission in particular has been pursuing the problems of what we call the "urban fringe". We have already seen the trial scheme in the Bollin Valley. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is shortly to have a meeting with Moseley district council and St. Helens to discuss an experimental scheme that we hope to develop to learn more about, and try to implement, some practical steps to deal with the problem, which is now recognised as very significant—the figures quoted by my hon. Friend drew attention to it—of the interface between urban areas and the countryside. Any hon. Member who has seen something of the problem will recognise that it needs attention.

Mr. Hardy: I am somewhat puzzled. I welcome all that the Minister has said, but it seems to me to suggest that the Government's policy is changing. For example, their attitude towards structure plans seems rather different today from what it was. Some of the decisions made by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in the past 12 months seem unlikely to be repeated in the next 12 months. One example concerns bigger hypermarkets. We should have another debate as soon as the recess is over so that we may examine the Department's priorities on these major planning matters.

Mr. King: As the Department's policies are always supremely consistent, I do not know whether the reason for the hon. Gentleman's puzzlement is failure to keep up to date with our very consistent policies. We are talking about the sum of a number of individual decisions. There will be a great deal of publicity over any one granting of permission for a hypermarket, but little for a significant number that may be refused. In trying to identify consistency of policy, the hon. Gentleman may be misled by the odd exception that is highlighted, compared with the generality. However, I take what he said in good part.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire for drawing attention to the problem of abuse of the countryside and vandalism. I do not think that we need a review, because penalties already exist. That is why I do not recommmend that his new clause should be accepted.
However, there is an important job to be done. I hope that we shall shortly be able to announce the first scheme to tackle the problem. After we have learnt the lessons of that, we shall need to consider whether further action is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) said that the first action that needed to be taken was to try to identify what was happening. I do not agree. I think that the House already knows enough about what is happening and that it is time for action and reinforcement of action. Successive Governments of both parties have become increasingly concerned about what is happening. It is precisely for those reasons that we are taking a much tougher view on land use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) spoke of the question of reservoirs, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) mentioned Empingham, or Rutland Water. I cannot comment too much on the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West. We are closely examining the reservoir that he mentioned. We rejected an application for a reservoir in Kent called Broadoak, which would have taken a substantial amount of agricultural land, because we did not consider that the case for it had been made.
In recent years applications for certain projects to go ahead have been made on the basis of demand forecast. My hon. Friend might choose to cite Empingham as one where—it would be improper for me to make any such suggestion—it might appear that demand forecasts were made, and substantial amounts of land were taken, for a project that will no doubt prove eminently worth while in due course but for which the loss of that land comes earlier than might have been thought to be justified.
Making the forecasts is difficult. We are examining them closely. Our decision on Broadoak shows that we are not automatically rubber-stamping applications by water authorities on a basis or forecast that we do not find acceptable. We are no longer prepared to tolerate the loss of good agricultural land because derelict urban sites are allowed to remain neglected and unused. Every hon. Member present could go to any major city and find bomb sites from the last war that have remained unused, neglected or under-used. The longer such land remains neglected, the greater the pressure on the countryside for development to take place there.

Mr. Farr: One of the difficulties is that virgin, unused land is much more attractive to a developer, because the

services can be put in without difficulty, whereas many of the derelict sites in the cities, even those sites that have been grassed over, have underneath them old electricity cables, pipes, drains and telephone cables, and are much more expensive to develop again.

Mr. King: That is why there must be a carrot-and-stick approach, with restraint in the more easily developable areas and encouragement for inner city development. That is why we are trying to break some of the log jams of the past. That is why we introduced the requirement for registers for unused and under-used land. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's tribute in that regard. Almost all of the first batch of registers are now set up. I am pleased to say that there has been good co-operation from district councils of all political persuasions. We shall do all that we can to ensure that the registers are effective and that a great deal of unused publicly owned land is moved on to the market and brought into development, which will make a real contribution to reducing the pressure on agricultural land.
Therefore, although for the reasons that I have given I cannot recommend that any of my hon. Friend's new clauses be accepted, I trust that nobody will suggest that it is due to any disagreement with the principles behind the issues that he has raised. My hon. Friend has suggested a report in one connection and a review in another. We are determined to go further. We wish to see real action. I therefore assure my hon. Friend that he has not only our sympathy in these matters but our commitment to action on every one of them.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has my sympathy, too. He has proposed three new clauses in a manner that has aroused the commendation of the entire House in a speech on which all of us would congratulate him. His speech was full of well-documented and highly disturbing facts. A case as well presented and as well documented as that deserved a far more forthcoming response from the Minister.
The Minister, having praised each new clause, then added the key word "but" and kicked each one into touch. In new clause 5, for example, the hon. Gentleman asks for statistics. The Minister says that there may be maps. When the hon. Gentleman asks for annual statistics, the Minister says that there will be maps, but only every two or three years or at some imprecise interval. That is not what the clauses seek or, I believe, what is required in the very dangerous situation to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
That dangerous situation would not be remedied by the new clauses, but new clause 7 would certainly assist and the other two new clauses would be valuable in mapping where we are and what we ought to do about it. The new clauses would be a useful addition to a Bill that the whole House would agree has achieved some useful though unsensational advances, particularly those relating to reciprocality of notification for sites of special scientific interest. Such advances as have been achieved owe a great deal to my right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, to Conservative Members, and I pay tribute to all who have taken part in the very hard work on the Bill as it has proceeded through the House.
I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) when he said in an earlier


debate that we shall all watch the operation of this legislation closely to see whether the new provisions are effective. One of the reasons why I would welcome the new clauses is that they would have helped in that monitoring process, which I believe is extremely important.
I give notice in the friendliest possible way to all concerned that Labour Members shall watch the operation of this legislation very closely indeed, if not with the material that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is seeking to provide, with whatever other material can be gained. If this legislation is not effective, which we hope it will be, we may well have to introduce the use of compulsion, either in the way proposed in new clause 7 or in other ways. We may have to consider the introduction of a planning system for the countryside equivalent to the planning system for the built environment. Moreover, we shall have to consider strengthening the existing planning system because it contains certain critical inadequacies.
During the course of the Bill, the Government have made much of the success of the voluntary activity on Exmoor. I readily acknowledge its success. But there are three flaws in that which may be helped by these proposals. Indeed, other proposals may have to be considered.
First, what has happened on Exmoor has depended on the amount of money available for compensation. Obviously, what was done on Exmoor could not possibly be done in the country at large, because the sums of money required would be billions of pounds, and clearly they are not available.
Secondly, what has been done on Exmoor has depended upon the payment of compensation. When one looks at this in perspective, it seems odd that this is not required in the built environment. It is a strange concept whereby we reward people for not doing damage. Apart from anything else, it could be an incitement to landowners to threaten development they do not intend simply to attract the compensation that is available.
Thirdly—here again, these proposals would assist—the kind of thing that has assisted Exmoor covers only outstanding sites. It is like having a planning system for the built environment that covers only listed buildings and nothing else. That is far from satisfactory. That is why a Labour Government may well have to consider an extension of the planning system to rural development.
This would have three features. First, listed sites of outstanding beauty, equivalent to the listed buildings system in the built environment, could be proposed by the Secretary of State, the NCC or other concerned bodies or individuals, and could be interfered with only with the express permission of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Chapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. We are running late and many hon. Members wish to take part in the succeeding debates.
Secondly, we may have to consider—this is along the lines of new clause 7—a system of planning permission for the countryside. If one cannot erect a carport at one's home without permission, it is arguable that the same criteria should apply to the destruction of hedgerows, downland, roughland, ponds, streams and wetland. I fully acknowledge—this is one of the reasons why I hope that

the function of the Bill will avoid what I am suggesting—that this means an extension of bureaucracy. I do not like bureaucracy, but if such a system were to be introduced, a general development order would have to be introduced for de minimis cases.
However, bureaucracy exists now in the shape of the common agricultural policy and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which pile on grants and subsidies to encourage, in some cases, the wrecking of the countryside. We have a system that encourages farmers to wreck downland for the production of cattle feed cake. Then there is over-production of milk, and the milk is turned back into skimmed milk and fed to the cattle which produced the surplus in the first place. We are now spending £35 million a year on that.
Farmers do not mind filling in forms for that. The estimated cost of a system of that kind is £16 million a year, which one could compare with the £200 million a year that is now paid in grants to farmers and water authorities for capital projects alone, never mind the £5 billion spent on agricultural support.
8.30 pm
Thirdly, I believe that we must have a system of appeals against planning permission in both town and country. We now have a major flaw in which the developer has the right of appeal but the victim of the development does not. Anyone living in the urban environment, where an amusement arcade is erected in his street or the next street or where planning permission is given for a take-away food shop, or someone in the countryside who loses the. ability to take his dog for a walk on downland, has no redress against the results of such action. That would also deal with the fear of partiality of the countryside planning authority.
I support new clause 7 as pointing the way we should go if the Bill, when enacted, does not do what we hope that it will do. I ask the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire whether he intends to press his new clause to a Division. If he does, we shall vote with him. If he decides not to do that, we shall vote on new clause 6 instead, as that is one on which we can force a Division. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow us to vote on new clause 7 because of his three new clauses—all of which we support—new clause 7 is the most important because it would give us positive action.
We may need to go even further, but that depends on the success of the Bill. That the Bill is worth enacting is an achievement and a victory for Parliament. The Minister would agree. He may agree privately rather than publicly, but I am sure that he would agree that Parliament has helped the Department of the Environment in winning some important victories over the Ministry of Agriculture on the Bill. Ministers have been able to follow their true instinct because conservation of the countryside, both for agricultural and for amenity purposes, is a true instinct in Ministers. They have sometimes been prevented from following their instinct due to the difficulties that some of us have experienced in Government. I am glad that the House has been able to assist the Minister and his colleagues in improving the Bill.
The Bill is far from the last word. The statistics that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has provided show how dangerous the position is. We shall watch it with the keenest interest and we shall be ready to act if necessary when the opportunity is given to us.

Mr. Hastings: I am grateful to my hon. Friends and to Opposition right hon. and hon. Members for the way in which they took part in the debate and for the kind things that they have said. I am especially grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services for answering the debate. I know him for a true countryman and accept entirely the feelings that lay behind his speech.
I am glad of support of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), but it would be a mistake to associate my new clauses too closely with ideas about future Labour policy on planning controls in the countryside, which, from some of the things he said, would need to be examined deeply by my hon. Friends before they could be put in the same context. Nevertheless, I agree with much that the right hon. Gentleman said.
I took it that my right hon. Friend endorsed my arguments but did not accept the need for legislation on any of the three points raised. I also took what he said as a firm indication of an intention to improve the present state of affairs without legislation. For the time being, so be it. Much of what my right hon. Friend said was generous and some of it was most interesting. The new technique of infra-red photography to produce land use maps is exactly the sort of thing that my hon. Friends and I are after. I am not insistent that it should be done every year, but I want a system that will ensure that it is done regularly. I shall follow progress in that area with interest.
My right hon. Friend dealt with all the matters raised in the debate except that ably outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr)—I also touched on it—namely, the land disappearing to motorways and major roadworks.

Mr. King: I apologise to my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). I took careful note of what they said and I should have told them that I am not able to respond today, but I will make further inquiries.

Mr. Hastings: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I accept his comments as an intention to improve matters as rapidly as practicable. I was a little disappointed when he said, on new clause 5, that an annual report cannot be made because it would be difficult for local authorities to produce information as they may not have it all. That is surely the point. However, I hope that through some of the means described by my right hon. Friend it will not be long before local authorities have that information.
I should emphasise to my right hon. Friend that if matters do not improve, as I expect them to do following his remarks, within, say, one year from now—and we shall keep a close watch on developments—we shall certainly return to the charge. The Opposition may be sure of that. And my right hon. Friend will not expect us to be as indulgent in those circumstances as we may be today.
In the light of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

REVIEW OF LAW ON ABUSE OF THE COUNTRYSIDE

'The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, draft

proposals for the review of enactments concerned with offences relating to the abuse of the countryside.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 106.

Division No. 294]
[8.38 pm


AYES


Beith, A. J.
Leighton, Ronald


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
McCartney, Hugh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marks, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dixon, Donald
Rooker, J. W.


Dormand, Jack
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Edwards, R. (Whampt'n S E)
Skinner, Dennis


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Soley, Clive


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Foulkes, George
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Stoddart, David


George, Bruce
Tinn, James


Graham, Ted
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Welsh, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Winnick, David


Howell, Rt Hon D.



Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Kerr, Russell
Mr. George Morton.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Lyell, Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Berry, Hon Anthony
Major, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Marland, Paul


Blackburn, John
Marlow, Tony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Mather, Carol


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bright, Graham
Mellor, David


Brinton, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Moate, Roger


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony
Montgomery, Fergus


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Murphy, Christopher


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Neale, Gerrard


Colvin, Michael
Needham, Richard


Cope, John
Neubert, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Newton, Tony


Cranborne, Viscount
Normanton, Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Dover, Denshore
Osborn, John


Durant, Tony
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Farr, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Goodlad, Alastair
Proctor, K. Harvey


Grant, Anthony, (Harrow C)
Renton, Tim


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hampson, Dr Keith
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Hawkins, Paul
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hawksley, Warren
Rossi, Hugh


Heddle, John
Scott, Nicholas


Hill, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hooson, Tom
Silvester, Fred


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Sims, Roger


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Speed, Keith


King, Rt Hon Tom
Speller, Tony


Le Marchant, Spencer
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Stainton, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor






Stevens, Martin
Watson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitney, Raymond


Tebbit, Norman
Wickenden, Keith


Thompson, Donald
Wilkinson, John


Thome, Neil (Ilford South)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wakeham,John
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and


Waller, Gary
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

CREATION OF REGIONAL PARKS FOR RECREATION IN ENGLAND AND WALES

'(1) A regional park is a park set in the countryside and extensive in size, located so as to be convenient to serve the recreational needs of a substantial number of the inhabitants of the area.
(2) County ccuncils shall have power—

(a) by order to designate lands within their region as regional parks, and
(b) to manage as a single administrative unit any parts of any such park which are under the control of the council,

and where it is appropriate that lands extending into more than one region should be designated as a regional park the councils concerned may jointly exercise the powers conferred by this subsection.
(3) Subject to subsection (4)(c) below, an order under subsection (2)(a) above shall not take effect until it is confirmed by the Secretary of State, who may confirm such order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he considers expedient.
(4) The Secretary of State shall by statutory instrument prescribe the procedure for making orders under subsection (2) (a) above and the form of such orders; and (without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) the regulations shall make provision as follows:—

(a) that before an order under subsection (2)(a) above is submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, notice of the terms of the order shall be given to the owners, lessees and occupiers of land within the areas designated in the order, and to such other persons, if any, as may be specified in the regulations:
(b) that objections and representations with respect to the order, if duly made in accordance with the regulations, shall be considered by the Secretary of State before he confirms the order;
(c) that if no objections or representations are made in respect of any order, or if any objections or representations made are withdrawn, the order shall not be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, but shall be confirmed without modification as an unopposed order by the council or council:; who made it; and
(d) that copies of confirmed orders shall be served on such persons as may be specified in the regulations.

(5) Any statutory instrument made in terms of subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) Where a planning application is made in relation to lands which fall within an area designated as a regional park, the planning authority shall have regard to the fact that the area has been so designated in considering the application.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have done a pretty good job with our national parks in protecting the landscape of England and Wales. They now protect most of the wild and dramatic areas of those countries. More recently, the countryside parks have been

developed by local authorities. But nothing like as much recognition, care or concern has been given to the rest of the British landscape—the need to care for the fanned parts of lowland Britain, the rolling chalk downs, the limestone escarpments, and similar areas. For many years some of us have argued that we should extend or create new national parks in the lowland parts of Britain, but our proposals have always been rejected on the ground that the areas were not large enough or were unsuitable.
The new clause contains a proposal to recognise as outstandingly attractive many of the lower parts of eastern and south-eastern England. The wording of the new clause is almost the same as the equivalent provision in the Countryside (Scotland) Act. The new clause proposes an intermediate area, not quite with the status of a national park but with considerable significance, for the lower parts of England and Wales. The Scottish legislation has just passed into law, and it is therefore logical that English legislation should contain the same provision.
In the new clause I have taken out the references lo Scotland and put in "county councils" for England and Wales. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Areas such as the Surrey hills, the Malverns, the Kent and Lickey hills, the East Sussex Downs and the Norfolk Broads would all be ideal for development as regional parks. Many of these areas already attract large numbers of people for recreation and leisure purposes. Many of them contain substantial areas which are already owned by the local authorities, and there would be advantages in bringing the ownership by the local authorities together into one scheme of management and giving the areas almost the same status as national parks.
As regional parks, they would have many advantages in developing tourism. We already have one regional park which is outstandingly successful, and that is the Lee Valley, which people from London and the urban areas visit. It was established by a special Act of Parliament in 1966, and it is sad that we have not developed any more such parks since then. Similar legislation for Scotland comes into force this year, and therefore I do not imagine that the Government will have any major difficulty in accepting the new clause.

Mr. Monro: I echo the praise by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) for the work of local authorities in this connection. He will understand, perhaps better than most, that the average size of a country park is about 200 or 300 acres. Regional parks are very much larger—something approaching the size of our national parks—and that is an altogether different exercise.
I accept that the Countryside (Scotland) Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this month, contains a power similar to that which the hon. Gentleman seeks. However, as he knows, there are no national parks in Scotland. That legislation was an opportunity to deal with the matter on a regional basis in Scotland, rather than creating national parks.
We all agree that we want to progress as quickly as possible. The argument is simple. It would be inappropriate at this late stage to introduce such a new concept without formal consultation. In any event, we have the well-established national parks system in England and Wales. We do not have anything similar to that envisaged in Scotland in relation to regional parks.
In the longer term it might never be appropriate, given that we already have national parks and that local


authorities have power to establish country parks which seem to be working satisfactorily. It is not the right time to introduce legislation to set up a new system which has not been discussed. I appreciate the remarks by the hon. Member for Stockport, North about local authority efforts towards conservation. However, he would be well advised to withdraw the clause.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The power in the new clause is discretionary and, therefore, the Minister's argument about consultation with local authorities is not very strong. Local authorities which did not wish to take advantage of the power would not have to do so. Consultation would not be absolutely necessary since there would be no requirement on local authorities.

Mr. Monro: The proposal involves discretion. In many areas a regional park would be inappropriate. To bring such an arrangement into a Bill without consultation with the Association of County Councils and other local authority bodies would be wrong. More important, we have our fine system of national parks in England and Wales. Local authorities can purchase and deal with ground that they own through the country parks. It would be wrong, out of the blue, to give them power to establish regional parks and new powers over land. Allowing local authorities to establish national parks of their own would not be in the interests of conservation.

Mr. Ted Graham: The Minister cannot have it more ways than one. The basis of his argument is that the proposal is inappropriate for England and Wales because we have the national parks system. When was the last national park created? I believe that it was in the late 1950s. It is almost 25 years since a national park was created.
I hope that the Minister is not saying that we do not need the new clause because the object can be achieved in other ways through legislation when he is not prepared to consider other ways. I cannot understand why he is not prepared to accept the new clause. He should at least say that he intends to give serious thought to ways of encouraging the creation of regional parks.
I commend to the House the experience of the GLC, the Hertfordshire and Essex county councils and the London boroughs in creating the Lee Valley regional park. It is unique. It required parliamentary legislation. It has worked well. However, after 20 years it needs a new lease of life. It needs to be revamped. All the bodies that I mentioned are considering how to do that. This is a first-class opportunity to provide something that cannot be provided by a small authority. The GLC is a small authority in that context. There needs to be collaboration.
9 pm
I support the concept of the new clause. If the Minister cannot say anything more helpful, I hope that he will take on board the fact that it is not good enough to say that we have the opportunity to create regional parks by using the opportunities available for national parks. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) mentioned a number of places where there is a crying need for national parks and areas of outstanding beauty. We are concerned now with places of recreation that are closer to the urban fringe than the national park concept.
About 10 million people enjoy and take advantage of the countryside for recreational activities. The Government should be more ready and willing to agree that if we cannot have more national parks we should introduce legislation, or amendments to existing legislation, to make the creation of regional parks a reality.

Mr. Cryer: I shall be brief because I know that the House is anxious to debate a wide range of amendments. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the possibility of introducing legislation that is similar to the new clause. The provision in the new clause is optional and does not bind local authorities. I would understand the Minister's point about consultation if the provision was a requirement on local authorities. Local authorities in large urban areas that could develop a regional park would like the opportunity to do so.
My constituency contains Haworth, where the Brontes lived and worked. About 200,000 people visit it each year. It is near to Halifax, Bradford and Leeds—the urban centres that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has in mind. There is a country park in the vicinity, but with so many visitors each year the local authority might wish to take advantage of creating a regional park. My hon. Friend and I were prudent in putting forward a new clause that gives local authorities a valuable alternative in their consideration of the usage of areas and the facilities that they need in areas such as Haworth. The visitors also use the moors that inspired the Brontë writers.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. The new clause would have been another string to the local authorities' bow. It would have been welcomed by most of them. I am sorry that the Minister will not accept it. If my hon. Friend pushes it to a vote, I shall support him.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 15

ORDER PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OUT OF OPERATIONS ON MOOR OR HEATH

'(1) Where it appears to the Minister or county planning authority that the character or appearance of any land to which an order under section 40 applies would be likely to be affected by the carrying out of any agricultural or forestry operation specified in that order they may, after any of the conditions specified in subsections (4) and (4A) of section 40 have been satisfied in respect of that land, make an order prohibiting the carrying out of operations on that land, or may amend or revoke such an order.
(2) If the owner or occupier of any land specified in an order made under this subsection, without reasonable excuse, carries out or causes or permits the carrying out on that land of any agricultural or forestry operation in contravention of the order he shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(3) Schedule 11 to this act shall have effect with respect to orders under this section.
(4) Where the Ministers or county planning authority make an order under this section or a restrictive amending order, which extends the area to which an order under this section applies or the description of operations specified in an order under this section, they shall pay compensation to any person (the claimant) having, at the time of the making of the order, an interest in land comprised in an agricultural unit comprising land to which the order applies who shows, on a claim made to them within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this subsection, that he is entitled to be paid compensation of an amount ascertained in accordance with the regulations under this


subsection. Regulations under this subsection shall be made by Ministers and shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) An order made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Graham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 109.

Divison No. 295]
[9.07 pm


AYES


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cryer, Bob
Marks, Kenneth


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Morton, George


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dormand, Jack
Rooker, J. W.


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Soley, Clive


George, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Graham, Ted
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hardy, Peter
Stoddart, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Walker, Rt Hon H,(D'caster)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Whitehead, Phillip


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Winnick, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Kerr, Russell
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. James Tinn and


McCartney, Hugh
Mr. Joseph Dean.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Ancram, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Beith, A. J.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Biggs-Davison, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Blackburn, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Major, John


Bright, Graham
Marland, Paul


Brinton, Tim
Marlow, Tony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mather, Carol


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Mellor, David


Buck, Antony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moate, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Monro, Hector


Colvin, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Cope, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Cormack, Patrick
Murphy, Christopher


Cranborne, Viscount
Neale, Gerrard


Dorrell, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Dover, Denshore
Neubert, Michael


Durant, Tony
Newton, Tony


Farr, John
Normanton, Tom


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Onslow, Cranley


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Osborn, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hastings, Stephen
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Heddle, John
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Hill, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rossi, Hugh


Hooson, Tom
Scott, Nicholas


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)





Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, David


Silvester, Fred
Wakeham, John


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Speed, Keith
Watson, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Raymond


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wickenden, Keith


Stevens, Martin
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Tebbit, Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Donald



Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Tellers for the Noes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


van Straubenzee, W. R.
and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 18

BURNING OF HEATHER AND GRASS

'In section 20(2) of the Hill Farming Act 1946 leave out 'five pounds' and insert '£100'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 48—Highways.
Government amendment No. 297.
Government amendment No. 166, in clause 66, page 56, line 8, at end insert—
'(8A) Section 80 of that Act (power of highway authority to fence highways) shall have effect in relation to any area in the countryside of which walls of a particular construction are a feature, as if references to fences included references to walls of that construction; and in exercising their powers under that section in relation to any such area, a highway authority shall have regard to the desirability of exercising the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this subsection.'
and the following amendments thereto:

(a), in section (8A), after first 'construction', insert 'or hedges of a particular type'.
(b), in section (8A), after second 'construction', insert 'or hedges of that type'.

Mr. Bennett: I appreciate that the Government have done better than my new clause 18 in amendment No. 297. It was encouraging in Committee that in many areas, although perhaps fairly minor ones, the Government listened to us. Early on, we mounted a major debate on the problems of burning moorland—the destruction of heather and particularly the damage to nesting birds. We drew attention to the fact that there seemed to be a large amount of illegal burning, some perhaps by accident and some deliberately. I proposed that the fine should be increased from £25 to £100, but the Government's proposal is £200.
On 17 July I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment—although the reply came from the Home Office—
how many people were prosecuted in England and Wales for illegally burning heather or moorland in the most recent period for which figures are available; what is the maximum fine for such an offence; and when the level of fine was last increased.
The answer was:
The latest records available … for 1979 show one person proceeded against in England and Wales for burning grass without a licence, contrary to section 20 of the Hill Farming Act".—[Official Report, 17 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 509.]


We are all aware that there are far more offences committed than that. I welcome the Government's proposal to increase the fine, but I hope that they can tell us that there will be effective enforcement. It does not matter how big the fine is; if it is not enforced, it will have little or no effect.
The Government have also sought to meet us on the question of walls and hedges alongside new roads or road improvements. We argued strongly in Committee that where new roads were built or roads were straightened or widened it was important that the replacement boundaries be traditional, whether stone or hedges. There is a new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams), new clause 48, which the Government have sought to meet with their amendment No. 166.
I have tabled two small amendments to the Government amendment to add "hedges" to the Government's reference to "walls". I hope that the Government will accept those amendments or that the Minister can say that they are not necessary, and that his term "wall" covers the appropriate boundary, whether a stone wall, a turf bank or a hedge, as appropriate for that part of the countryside.
I shall not press the clause to a vote as I prefer Government amendment No. 297.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) for moving his new clause. As he said, Government amendment No. 297 goes much further than his clause, with the much higher penalty of £200. The penalty is currently £200 for stubble-burning, and it is right that it should be the same for muirburn.
I take the point about enforcement. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary question earlier this month will have brought the need home to chief officers of police.
Government amendment No. 166 fulfils a promise that the Government made in Committee about boundaries being replaced after road improvements and so on. It helps considerably to provide the right type of boundary when an old hedge or stone wall has been taken down. Our amendment gives the owner the right to decide whether he should receive compensation or the authority should replace the wall if appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his amendments (a) and (b) to amendment No. 166. Our amendment is a further extension of section 80 of the Highways Act 1980. To include power to provide hedges would duplicate the power in section 96 of that Act, which allows the highway authority to plant shrubs beside the highway. Such duplication would be undesirable.
There is the further point that fencing, particularly of motorways, is to prevent access by people or animals. Hedges are slow-growing and would not be an effective "fence" for some time. It might be 10 years before a beech or thorn hedge was effective.
There is no reason why the Department of Transport or the responsible highway authority should not plant a hedge alongside a post and wire fence, so that the hedge develops in time. I am told that the Department of Transport has its own corps of landscape experts who make great efforts to see that this is done in appropriate places. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's amendments, being covered by legislation and by the will of the Department, are unnecessary. The two Government amendments more than cover his other two major points.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am pleased to accept his assurances about the amendments.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28

AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Amendments made: No. 232, in page 26, line 5, at end insert

'and
(c) to the Secretary of State.'—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

No. 214, in page 26, line 5, at end insert—

'(1A) Before giving a notification under subsection (1), the Council shall give notice to the persons mentioned in that subsection—

(a) setting out the proposed notification; and
(b) specifying the time (not being less than three months from the date of the giving of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect thereto may be made,

and shall consider any representations or objections duly made.

(1B) If, after reasonable inquiry has been made, the Council are satisfied that it is not practicable to ascertain the name or address of an owner or occupier of any land a notification or notice required to be served on him may be served by addressing it to him by the description "owner" or "occupier" of the land (describing it) and by affixing it to some conspicuous object or objects on the land.'

No. 215, in page 26, leave out lines 11 to 34 and insert—

'(3) The owner or occupier of any land notified under subsection (1)(b) shall not carry out, or cause or permit to be carried out, on that land any operation specified in the notification unless—

(a) one of them has, after the commencement date, given the Council notice of a proposal to carry out the operation specifying its nature and the land on which it is proposed to carry it out; and
(b) one of the conditions specified in subsection (4) is fulfilled.

(4) The said conditions are—

(a) that the operation is carried out with the Council's written consent;
(b) that the operation is carried out in accordance with the terms of an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act; and
(c) that three months have expired from the giving of the notice under subsection (3).

(5) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.

(6) It is a reasonable excuse in any event for a person to carry out an operation if—

(a) the operation was authorised by a planning permission granted on an application under Part HI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or Part HI of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; or
(b) the operation was an emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) were notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.

(7) The Council shall have power to enforce the provisions of this section; but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising the Council to institute proceedings in Scotland for an offence.

(8) Proceedings in England and Wales for an offence under subsection (5) shall not, without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, be taken by a person other than the Council.

(9) A notification under subsection (1)(b) of land in England and Wales shall be a local land charge.

(10) A notification under subsection (1)(b) of land in Scotland shall be registered either—

(a) in a case where the land is registered in that Register, in the Land Register of Scotland; or


(b) in any other case, in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.

(11) Section 23 of the 1949 Act (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect; but any notification given under that section shall have effect as if given under subsection (1)(a)

(12) Subsection (1A) shall not apply in relation to a notification of any land under subsection (1)(b) where a notification of that land under the said section 23 has effect as if given under subsection (1)(a).'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 29

SPECIAL PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Amendments made: No. 217, in page 27, line 43, leave out from 'agreement' to 'under' in line 44 and insert
'for the acquisition of the interest of the person who gave the notice under subsection (4) or an agreement'.

No. 218, in page 28, line 1, after second 'Act', insert
'providing for the making by them of payments to that person'.

No. 219, in page 28, line 7, after 'rejection', insert 'or withdrawal'.

No. 71, in page 28, line 41, at end insert—
'(11) A report made under section 17(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 for any year shall set out particulars of any areas of land as respects which orders under this section have come into operation during that year.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 30

COMPENSATION WHERE ORDER IS MADE UNDER S. 29

Amendments made: No. 147, in page 29, line 1, leave out 'This section', and insert 'Subsection (1A) applies where an order is made under section 29 and subsection (2)'.

No. 148, in page 29, line 4, leave out 'section 29', and insert 'that section'.

No. 149, in page 29, line 6, at end insert—
'(1A) The Council shall pay compensation to any person having at the time of the making of the order an interest in land comprised in an agricultural unit comprising land to which the order relates who, on a claim made to the Council within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this section, shows that the value of his interest is less than what it would have been if the order had not been made; and the amount of the compensation shall be equal to the difference between the two values.'.

No. 150, in page 29, line 14, leave out 'the making of the order', and insert
'reason of paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of section 29 having effect as modified by subsection (6) or (7) of that section'.

No. 151, in page 29, line 17, leave out 'the making of the order', and insert
'that paragraph having effect as so modified'.

No. 152, in page 29, line 20, at end insert—

'(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—

(a) an interest in land shall be valued as at the time when the order is made;
(b) where a person, by reason of his having mre than one interest in land, makes more than one claim under that subsection in respect of the same order, his various interests shall be valued together;
(c) section 10 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (mortgages, trusts for sale and settlements) or section 10 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (restricted interests in. land) shall apply in relation to compensation under that subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part I of that Act.

(2B) For the purposes of assessing any compensation payable under subsection (1A), the rules set out in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 or section 12 of the Land Compensation

(Scotland) Act 1963 shall, so far as applicable and subject to any necessary modifications, have effect as they have effect for the purpose of assessing compensation for the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land.

(2C) No claim shall be made under subsection (1A) in respect of any order under section 29 unless the Secretary of State has given notice under paragraph 6(1) or (2) of Schedule 11 of his decision in respect of the order; and, without prejudice to subsection (2A)(a), that decision will be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of the order '.

No. 154, in page 29, line 38, at end insert—

'(7) In this section "agricultural unit" means land which is occupied as a unit for agricultural purposes, including any dwelling-house or other building occupied by the same person for the purpose of farming the land.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 31

RESTORATION WHERE ORDER UNDER S. 29 IS CONTRAVENED

Amendments made: No. 187, in page 30, leave out lines 3 to 5.

No. 190, in page 30, line 30, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 32 and insert
'If, within the period specified in an order under this section, the person against whom it was made fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with it, he'.

No. 188, in page 30, line 33, leave out '£500' and insert '£1,000'.

No. 189, in page 30, line 35 leave out '£50' and insert '£100'.

No. 191, in page 30, line 36, at end insert—
'(6A) If, within the period specified in an order under this section, any operations specified in the order have not been carried out, the Nature Conservancy Council may enter the land and carry out those operations and recover from the person against whom the order was made any expenses reasonably incurred by them in doing so.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 32

LIMESTONE PAVEMENT ORDERS

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in page 30, line 43, leave out from 'which' to 'is' in line 1 on page 31 and insert 'comprises a limestone pavement'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 315, in page 31, line 1, leave out 'special', and Government amendments Nos. 179 to 186.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I think that we all appreciate that almost all of this group of amendments relating to limestone pavements are a response from the Government to the debate in the Standing Committee.
One small point has been drawn to my attention since the Committee debate. Amendment No. 315 seeks to deal with it. I think that almost every hon. Member who spoke in the Committee debate regarded all areas of substantial limestone pavement as being of special interest. In other words, we intended to include all limestone pavements in the North of England and in Scotland. It has been brought to my attention that the word "special", which my amendment seeks to delete, leads to uncertainty.
The Bill at present reads:
land … substantially of limestone exposed on or lying near the surface of the ground is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiological features".
It has been put to me that the reference to "special interest" rather than simply "interest" suggests that some limestone pavement is of particular interest and will be classified


whereas some will not. The intention of the Committee was clearly to regard all limestone pavement as of special interest. I hope that the Minister can confirm that there will not be two categories of limestone pavement, one which is considered to be special and the other to be just the ordinary run of limestone pavement. The Committee clearly wished all remaining limestone pavements in this country to have special protection. I hope that the Minister can give that assurance.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) for his remarks about the other amendments in the group. I believe that we have really sorted out the limestone pavement problem, including—somewhat to my astonishment—the definition, about which people seem to be happy. There should therefore be no further problems. I have received representations that the protection afforded to limestone pavements should not be restricted to those areas which are of special scientific interest, in the terms of clause 28. I accepted that and the Bill has been drafted so that any limestone pavement which is worthy of protection may be protected by an order, regardless of whether the NCC has notified the planning authority under clause 28 or under the 1949 Act, that it is an area of special interest. I am pleased to give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks that local authorities will be notified of all pavements of interest. I believe that we have covered everything and that it is a great plus for the future.

Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the subject of limestone pavements, may I say that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) told me that he hoped to be taking part in the debate briefly to withdraw some of the remarks that he made about Bristol university about the taking of limestone from pavements in Sutherland. We have not yet got to the bottom of this following the press reports, but I had a word with the vice-chancellor of Bristol university, Sir Alec Merrison, who is making continuing inquiries. I do not think that we should assume necessarily that Bristol university was at fault.

Mr. Denis Howell: I want to add my appreciation to the members of the Committee and the Government, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who were particularly pressing throughout the debate on the subject. I am advised by such bodies as the Council for the Protection of Rural England and other organisations that all I need say is "Good news". I therefore make the shortest speech that I have made on the Bill and express my appreciation to the Government.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In view of the helpful assurance that the Minister has given, I do not want to press amendment No. 315 to a vote. I am pleased that the Minister intends that all limestone pavement should be protected.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 179, in page 31, line 11, after 'order', insert
'(in this section referred to as a "limestone pavement order")'.

No. 180, in page 31, line 14, leave out 'orders under this section' and insert
'limestone pavement orders'.

No. 181, in page 31, line 16, leave out 'an order under this section' and insert
'a limestone pavement order'.

No. 182, in page 31, line 23, leave out 'an order under this section' and insert
'a limestone pavement order'.

No. 183, in page 31, line 31, after 'granted', insert
'on an application'.

No. 184, in page 31, line 32, leave out from '1972' to end of line 38.

No. 185, in page 31, line 42, at end insert—
'"limestone pavement" means an area of limestone which lies wholly or partly exposed on the surface of the ground and has been fissured by natural erosion;'.

No. 186, in page 31, line 43, at beginning insert 'the'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 34

MARINE NATURE RESERVES

Amendment made: No. 225, in page 32, line 28, leave out Clause 34.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 36

DUTIES OF WATER AUTHORITIES ETC.

Amendment made: No. 162, in page 34, line 33, leave out Clause 36.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 37

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF LAND

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 220, in page 35, line 16, after 'beauty', insert 'or amenity'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 221, 155 and 156.
Amendment No. 72, in clause 39, page 37, line 23, leave out
'after consulting with the Secretary of State',
and insert
'with the provision that if the objection is not withdrawn the application shall be determined by the Ministers'.
Amendment No. 145, in page 37, line 23, at end insert—
'(c) where the relevant authority recommend that a farmer shall carry out an operation in a manner involving greater expenditure the farmer shall be compensated by a grant equal to the difference between the cost of the two operations in addition to the grant payable for the operation he proposed to carry out'.
Government amendment No. 157.
Amendment No. 142, in page 37, line 25, after 'Park', insert
'or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.'.
Government amendments Nos. 158 to 161.

Mr. King: These amendments relate to the proposals that we have made under what are called the Sandford amendments and new clause 39. Amendment No. 220 is a technical amendment adding the words "or amenity" to bring clauses 37 and 39 into line. Amendment No. 221 is also a technical amendment. Amendment No. 155 puts the Secretary of State for Scotland under the same duty as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which I am sure will please the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr.


Dalyell) as it is in response to the undertaking that we gave in Committee, which was still under consideration by my right hon. Friend at that time.
Amendments Nos. 156,157 and 161 extend to Scotland the provisions of clause 39(2) and (3) in respect of the proposed operations on land in national parks—although there are no national parks in Scotland—and other areas specified by the Minister. It is a technical point that is covered by the: amendment.
I shall not comment on amendment No. 142 at this stage. Amendment No. 158 is technical, Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 are consequential on new clause 33. I shall not comment on amendments Nos. 72 or 145.

Mr. Dalyell: It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge what the Government have done in relation to Scottish legislation. I thank them for that.
The success or failure of the Bill will depend considerably on the amount of money that can be made available to the NCC. I believe that at the end of the day we shall have to consider the kind of planning that was outlined in an earlier debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). It is wrong to pay people considerable sums of public money not to do certain things. Having said that, and given the parameters of the Bill, it is obviously of the greatest importance that the NCC has the funds available to cope with many of the problems that will doubtless confront it.
I am not at all happy about the concept of the super-SSSI, nor am I happy about the three-month period. Perhaps it should be much longer. But at least a start has been made, and at least monitoring can now take place. I give the undertaking that some of us will be extremely industrious in our efforts to monitor what has taken place.
I hope that this is a success. If the Bill works—at present, I say that against my better judgment—so much the better. Nevertheless, it will be monitored.
Time hastens on, and I am conscious that part HI has been under-discussed. A number of outside interests that have shown concern about the Bill have been disappointed at the attitude of some hon. Members who have not gone for the Sandford proposal lock, stock and barrel as it emerged from the other place. They wanted Sandford in a pristine state, but the proposition as it emerged from the other place would involve the regeneration of our rural economy. That may be a desirable and estimable end, but some of us think that it is unrealistic to use this Bill to resuscitate the rural economy. Other parliamentary vehicles can be used to do that.
One argument that weighed heavily with us was that the funds would be spread out with a watering-can effect if Sandford, as it emerged from the Lords, was accepted. We register the disappointment of the Council for National Parks and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, but at no stage have we agreed with them that the Bill should be used as a vehicle to introduce what they want. The use of Ministry and European horticulture and agriculture development funds for wildlife and conservation is a step forward. It is in that spirit that I support amendment No. 72, which deals with the two Ministers mentioned in clause 39. In doing so, I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and others who will expand on this matter.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has expressed our concern and I

hope that the Minister will look favourably on amendment No. 72. If he does not, the House should divide on the amendment, because it is important.
The new clause restores the principle of widening Ministry of Agriculture grants, which was established by the original Sandford amendment. The clause addresses itself adequately to all the points raised by the Sandford amendment, except the most crucial—the extension of the Ministry's grants system to incorporate the objectives of conservation and other schemes of benefit to the rural economy.
The Minister has not properly responded to the fact that the fundamental principle on which Sandford rested was that grants should be available to farmers for a wider variety of purposes, including conservation and recreation schemes, farm-based tourism and craft industries and other schemes of benefit to rural communities.
The overriding emphasis remains on agricultural productivity. That emphasis currently pervades the Ministry of Agriculture's grants system and it is one of the major reasons for the destruction of the character of Britain's national parks, including the ploughing of moorland, the drainage of wetlands and the reduction in farm labour.
The social, economic and environmental problems of our upland areas, especially in the national parks, are such that a comprehensive strategy must be adopted to achieve the revitalisation of conservation objectives.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) made an important speech and suggested that there would be a marked advance if the Ministry of Agriculture changed its grant arrangements from a system of headage payments to a system of acreage payments. The cost would be no greater, but substantial good would result from such a change and I am sorry that the Minister did not pursue that suggestion.
We need a system under which farmers can apply for grants to serve not only agricultural objectives but the objectives that the Minister claims to acknowledge. The Government should be prepared to extend the role of the advisory service to cover social, economic and environmental objectives. If the Government are prepared to promote that change, it would surely be logical for them to accept that there should be a similar extension of the agricultural capital grants system to provide money for environmental and socio-economic projects. If the Government do not accept that, they can scarcely claim to have retained both the spirit and the purpose of the Sandford amendment.
Perhaps the most significant amendment in the group is No. 72.

Mr. King: Has the hon. Gentleman been quoting from a document or has he been stating his own views?

Mr. Hardy: I have been referring to notes in a brief, but I was not quoting them word for word.

Mr. King: I do not complain about that, but would the hon. Gentleman care to say who holds those views?

Mr. Hardy: I shall certainly do that at the end of my speech. I had planned to do so in any case.
Amendment No. 72 would strengthen the position of the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment. He will be aware that throughout our consideration of the Bill we have consistently sought to


strengthen his Department against the Ministry of Agriculture. Indeed, perhaps we have served an enormously useful purpose over the past three or four months in raising the status of the Department. At the start of the Bill's progress it seemed that the Department was well down the pecking order and slavishly obeyed every diktat from the Ministry of Agriculture.
The Opposition have made an enormous contribution to saving the face of the Department of the Environment. Amendment No. 72 seeks to maintain that service. We seek to continue to strengthen the Department of the Environment in its dealings with the unimaginative Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Secretary of State should have a greater capacity to be involved. At the moment, the county planning authorities and the Nature Conservancy Council receive prior notification from fanners. If those organisations object, there is an opportunity for them to discuss the scheme and to seek modifications. If they maintain their objections, the final decision on whether the grant is awarded rests solely with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That causes the Opposition a great deal of concern.
9.45 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment presented the Bill on Second Reading in the best possible manner. I intervened to refer to a press notice issued a day or two earlier by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I referred to what was stated in the press notice by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is, perhaps, the Minister who will make the decisions. This is one of the reasons for our concern, suspicion and anxiety. The Minister stated emphatically that there was no natural beauty in the British Isles.
The Secretary of State for the Environment did not let down or betray his colleague. The right hon. Gentleman revealed a solidarity that may be commendable. However, the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was appalling. It justifies Opposition Members saying that Ministers of that kind operating in Departments of that kind should not be allowed sole responsibility in decision-making.
With the evidence strongly on our side, I think that our case is incontrovertible. Amendment No. 72 ensures that Ministers in the Department of the Environment have an input in a matter that is so relevant to the environment. If we are to protect the landscape and to serve the socio-economic features of our rural heritage, about which the Minister spoke movingly in Committee, I do not believe that the Government can deny the logic of the case that underlies amendment No. 72. Consultation may help. Given the opinions of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and our experience of the attitudes of that Ministry over the last few years and its insistence, despite the powerful arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, it seems to me that our case that the Department of the Environment should be involved and not merely consulted is overwhelming.
The Minister received considerable applause from many organisations and individuals when he moved from the initial attitude taken in response to Sandford when the Bill came to this House. The Minister will forfeit the

respect of those individuals and organisations if he does not take advantage of our efforts and make a stand on behalf of, and in the name of, his own Department. The organisations involved are serious organisations. I have been referring to documents produced by the Council for National Parks and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, but I believe that every single environmental and conservation organisation will endorse my remarks. It is essential that there should be a balance. That balance cannot be maintained if decisions are left to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its Parliamentary Secretary.
I hope that the Minister will stand firm for his Department and perhaps maintain the pecking order that may have improved over the last few months. It is in the interests of the countryside that the Department of the Environment should not be ignored in decision-making. For that reason, amendment No. 72 seems a good amendment. I trust that it will be accepted.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said in favour of amendment No. 72 and hope that the Government will accept it. However, grouped with it are two others, amendment Nos. 142 and 145, to which I want briefly to speak.
Amendment No. 142 deals with areas of outstanding natural beauty. Those of us who welcome the Government's proposals to implement the Sandford amendment argue strongly that it should apply not only to national parks but also to areas of outstanding natural beauty. I hope that we shall reach the stage where those who farm in national parks or in areas of outstanding natural beauty can see positive advantages in the form of assistance which they get from the Government for being in those areas. In other words, I should like to see them getting some compensation because they are looking after for the country one of its major amenities. If they are doing that, it is important that they get help in areas of outstanding natural beauty as well as in the national parks. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept amendment No. 142.
Amendment No. 145 highlights what is still one of the major problems with the so-called Sandford amendment. Most of the money available for carrying out the amendment will be made available by a statutory instrument of 1980, No. 1298, the agriculture and horticulture development regulations. That statutory instrument is very much dependent on EEC regulations, but it sets out the amounts of the grants which will be available to farmers to carry out all sorts of activities.
I suggest that in many ways it is the weighting of those grants which decides whether we are going for conservation or for the destruction of the countryside. Looking through the weighting of those grants, we find that in many areas which tend to be destructive the grants are rather more favourable than they are in areas which are much more oriented towards conservation.
A fanner in one of the less favoured areas, which tend to be the national park areas, can get up to 50 per cent. of the cost of clearing or reclaiming land, subsoiling, burning heather or grass or making muirburn, levelling or grading ground, including the filling in of ditches or ponds, removal of tree roots, boulders or other obstructions to cultivation, and bracken control. However,


certain other activities which may be much more oriented to conservation qualify for an amount of grant which is much less.
When we look at the detail, however, we see that very often the farmer is forced to do what is cheapest and may be of least value in conserving the appearance of the countryside. Perhaps I may give an example. In many areas, sadly, old stone walls have got into almost total disrepair. If a farmer wishes to make a field boundary effective again, he can apply for a grant, and he will get 50 per cent. of the cost of putting up a wire fence close to the line of the wall. However, that does nothing to conserve the appearance of the countryside. It would be far more attractive if he could be persuaded to have the wall rebuilt or to rebuild it himself. He can get 50 per cent. of the cost of rebuilding it, of course, but he has still to find far more money himself—in other words, 50 per cent. of the cost of replacing the wall rather than 50 per cent. of the cost of putting up a wire fence. For the farmer the two are just about as effective for stock control purposes. But, in terms of conservation of the amenity of the area, if traditionally there has been a stone wall there it is far better for it to be replaced.
Amendment No. 145 proposes that if we ask the farmer to engage in the dearer of the two activities because it is good for the amenity of the area, he should be compensated. He should not just be able to get the grant for doing it. He should get assistance to compensate him for the difference between the cheapest method and what is best for the amenity. I could give the House many other examples from the instrument which governs this.
There is a problem because, as I understand it, a meeting of EEC Agriculture Ministers could suddenly decide that these agriculture/horticulture regulations can be redrawn. I hope that the Minister will assure us that in redrawing the regulations, or in changing the percentage grants, either in general or in the less favoured areas, British Ministers will ensure that the whole question of conservation is taken into account in the grants that are made, and that the grant does not become more and more favourable when it is merely for food production and possibly to the destruction of amenity rather than when it is for the purpose of conserving the countryside.

Mr. Marks: It would be churlish not to admit that the Government have come a long way to meet our point of view since Second Reading. I admit, too, that the Minister is in charge of a Bill which has long-term consequences during a difficult period of public expenditure and restraint, particularly on the matters about which we are concerned. Nevertheless, in the amendments we are seeking to ensure that the environmental point of view is put forward up to the very last stage of the grants.
The Sandford amendment, which is now clause 39, contained the brilliant idea of using the very thing that created the problem—Ministry of Agriculture grants towards clearing moorland and making it arable—and using that system of grants to defend the environment as well. Early on, the Government were chary about supporting that idea. We realise that the Government have

come a long way, but amendment No. 72, in particular, would give further support to the Department of the Environment in its tussles with the Ministry of Agriculture. It could be said that we do not trust the Minister of Agriculture, and I admit that.
On amendment No. 142, it has already been said that it is more than 20 years since we had a new national park, and that suggests that many of the ideas put forward in this connection should be applied to the areas of outstanding natural beauty as well as to the national parks themselves.
Amendment No. 145 is surely worthy of acceptance, and I am sure that it would be supported by hon. Members who represent fanners' interests. If we expect farmers not only to profit from so-called improvements to their land but to perform environmental tasks such as building new walls and maintaining them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) suggested, the amendment will help in that regard. I therefore hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), who put the subject back into its proper context, and that is the major advance that has been made by the Government. There were moments in the speeches of the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) when it seemed that somehow we had failed to achieve a significant breakthrough in this connection. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Gorton for his comments, which were much more in keeping with the generous comments of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) on the important step forward that we have made.
In connection with amendment No. 142, I understand why hon, Members wish to extend the provisions of the clause immediately to AONBs. We agreed that they should be extended to include national parks. We have gone further than Sandford. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about the pressure to accept Sandford lock, stock and barrel. In fact, Sandford did not go as far as we are going in this respect. The hon. Gentleman may wish to point out to one or two of the organisations which are perhaps sticking the needle into him that Sandford referred only to national parks and such other areas as might be specified.
We have already specified SSSIs in new clause 31. National parks and SSSIs are now included. There is the power to specify other areas. I cannot accept AONBs at this stage. There are complications. There are no arrangements to require notification by farmers to the planning authority.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords] and the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Employment and Training Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Newton.]

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. King: The Government do not wish to enter into the proposal because of the heavy administrative costs in the early stages. We do not rule out, at some future date, the possibility of specifying that the Sandford arrangements should be extended to AONBs which are particularly vulnerable. I cannot accept the amendment, but, for the reasons that I have given, that is not a rejection for all time.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North made unaccustomed heavy weather of amendment No. 145. The amendment is defective, although I understand the principle behind it. The principle is not totally unfair, but it will not work as the hon. Gentleman described. If any relevant authority objects to a proposal, there will be discussions with a farmer about it to see whether changes can be made to make it more acceptable. If the changes produce a solution at a reasonable cost, the full cost of the works will be eligible for the MAFF grant. That should go a long way to meeting the hon. Gentleman's point. It would not meet it only if the cost were unreasonable. I cannot think that any hon. Gentleman would suggest that I should say that the scheme should involve unreasonable costs.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley became excited about the key amendment. The hon. Member for Gorton, who is sitting next to him, should have told him that what he is pressing for does not add up to anything. He said that the Minister of Agriculture, or the Parliamentary Secretary, should not have sole responsibility. He said that the Minister should be involved, not merely consulted. The hon. Gentleman should study what is meant by a statutory right to consultation. That is what hon. Members ask for. That is what we have included in the Bill. That is a powerful position in Government. Once a Department or Minister has the statutory right to be consulted, it is virtually impossible for another Department or Minister to decide anything unless there has been a resolution at a high level. In the end, somebody has to take a decision.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley made much of a comment by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheres and Food. He was saying that the appearance of the countryside owes a lot to farmers. The Parliamentary Secretary used a certain degree of hyperbole, but he was fighting a particular corner. In fighting for the countryside and fighting to prevent the automatic and easy erosion of agricultural land, in fighting on planning applications and development cases which come before the Government, I doubt whether there has been a Minister in recent years who has fought as hard as the Parliamentary Secretary. In many cases, he is quite a nuisance in these matters. He has been an effective nuisance in his defence of the countryside. As comments have been made about him, and as I failed to make my point clear in the previous debate, I now put my view on the record. We need a voice that is prepared to shout in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
We have been absolutely firm in our determination to ensure that the clause provides the statutory right to consultation. I should be surprised if hon. Members

thought that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends, having devoted so much time to achieving a number of developments and improvements to the Bill, would now allow a situation to develop in which we did not have satisfactory and proper protection for the interests of the environment. The statutory right to consultation is a vital safeguard that is essential for the protection of the environment. We have achieved that. Joint determination does not improve on that. That is why I cannot recommend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Dalyell: I asked about cash for the NCC. Will the Minister make a statement now, or on Third Reading, about that vital, crucial, central matter?

Mr. King: I shall do so on Third Reading.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 221, in page 36, line 5, after 'section', insert 'the'.—[Mr. King.]

Clause 39

DUTIES OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS

Amendments made: No. 155, in page 37, line 6, at end insert—
'(1 A) In the exercise of his general duty under section 4(2) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 of promoting the interests of agriculture and other rural industries, and without prejudice to the generality of that duty, the Secretary of State shall make provision, through such organisation as he considers appropriate, for the giving of such advice as is mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1).'.

No. 156, in page 37, line 9, leave out
'to which this subsection applies'

and insert
'which is in a National Park or an area specified for the purposes of this subsection by the Ministers.'.—[Mr. King.]

Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 37, line 23, leave out
'after consulting with the Secretary of State'
and insert
'with the provision that if the objection is not withdrawn the application shall be determined by the Ministers'.—[Mr. Hardy.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 108.

Divison No. 296]
[10.07 pm


AYES


Beith, A. J.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Marks, Kenneth


Cryer, Bob
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morton, George


Dalyell, Tam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dixon, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, Jack
Soley, Clive


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Stoddart, David


George, Bruce
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Graham, Ted
Welsh, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Winnick, David


Howell, Rt Hon D.



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. Frank Haynes and


McCartney, Hugh
Mr. James Tinn






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Moate, Roger


Ancram, Michael
Monro, Hector


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Biggs-Davison, John
Murphy, Christopher


Blackburn, John
Neale, Gerrard


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Needham, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Neubert, Michael


Bright, Graham
Newton, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Normanton, Tom


Brooke, Hon Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Osborn, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Buck, Antony
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Renton, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Colvin, Michael
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Cope, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cormack, Patrick
Rossi, Hugh


Cranborne, Viscount
Scott, Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dover, Denshore
Silvester, Fred


Durant, Tony
Sims, Roger


Farr, John
Speed, Keith


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Speller, Tony


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Stainton, Keith


Gummer, John Selwyn
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stevens, Martin


Hastings, Stephen
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hawkins, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hawksley, Warren
Tebbit, Norman


Heddle, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hill, James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Viggers, Peter


Hooson, Tom
Waddington, David


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Wakeham, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Waller, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom
Watson, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Wells, Bowen


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Wheeler, John


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Whitney, Raymond


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wickenden, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Major, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Marland, Paul
Winterton, Nicholas


Marlow, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Mather, Carol
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Mellor, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 157, in page 37, line 24, leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 26 and insert:
'shall have effect, in its application to Scotland, as if references to the amenity of the countryside were omitted.'.

No. 158, in page 37, line 32, leave out 'make' and insert 'enter into'.

No. 159, in page 37, line 36, leave out 'the relevant authority' and insert 'them of payments'.

No. 160, in page 37, line 37, leave out from 'applicant' to end of line 38.

No. 161, in page 37, line 42, leave out from first 'agreement' to end of line 3 on page 38 and insert—

'(a) in relation to England and Wales, means an agreement under section 37;

(b) in relation to Scotland, means an agreement under section 49A of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967;
the relevant authority"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in section 37;

(b) in relation to Scotland, means the authority exercising district planning functions.

(5) Subsection (1) extends only to England and Wales and subsection (1A) extends only to Scotland.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 40

NOTIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ON MOOR AND HEATH IN NATIONAL PARKS

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 141, in page 38, line 36, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'eighteen'.
This amendment goes back to an area which we debated at length earlier—the way in which our moorland is disappearing. We argued strongly that, although we welcomed the Government's proposals that they would ask each national park to prepare a map, we really wanted a fallback position in which there were residual powers for the Minister to bring in compulsion.
In the Bill as it stands, people will have to give 12 months' notice in those areas which are designated. We felt that that was inadequate—at one stage it was suggested that there might have to be compulsory purchase if an important area was going to be destroyed—and if there was to be action more time should be available than 12 months. We argued strongly in Committee that the time should be at least two years. Now that we are returning to the subject, it seems reasonable that at least 18 months' notice should be given. If the farmer is intending to plough up or convert moorland into pasture, he will not do it quickly. He will take some time to work out the costs and he will go into the question of grants. To give 18 months' notice is reasonable. If someone is planning farming scientifically, he will not do things on the spur of the moment. Therefore, it is no hardship to the farmer to give such notice. I should have thought that this was a concession that the Minister could give even at this late stage.

Mr. Monro: As the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, we discussed this matter much earlier. Frankly, over the several hours my mind has not changed. Although I appreciate the argument, I cannot accept it. We come back to the basic issue of the voluntary system against the stronger line that he wishes to take with the back-up power. We have already increased the period of delay from six to 12 months, which should be adequate. The provision is built into the excellent voluntary agreement drawn up by the NFU, the CLA and the national parks committee in Exmoor which could be followed through elsewhere. There is no need to rehearse the arguments again.
The situation deteriorated dramatically. We do not believe that that is likely to happen again, but we have the 12 months during which alternative legislation could be introduced. However, I do not believe that that will be necessary in view of the present attitude. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to seek permission to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: I appreciate that the Government have doubled the period, so I shall not unduly labour the point. We do not wish to press the amendment to a Division, although we remain sceptical that 12 months is adequate.
The Minister said one important thing. He hopes that the agreement drawn up at Exmoor will be taken up elsewhere. We have demonstrated, particularly after Dr. Parry's evidence, that it is crucial for it to be taken up in the other national parks, but who will take the initiative? Will the Minister draw the debate to the attention of the Countryside Commission, the NFU, the CLA and the Council for the Protection of Rural England and ensure that those national parks that have not had the benefit of that type of agreement consider it? If he can get those involved talking about voluntary agreements in other areas, many of us would feel relieved.

Mr. Monro: I am sure that the national parks committees have followed with interest the development of the Bill, including our debates on Exmoor. The Porchester report has shown the need to take action, and I am sure that the committee will realise that the voluntary agreement has been a success. I shall certainly make sure that the committees know about the agreement and that they have copies of it.
However, the Bill will not be enacted until later in the year, and many of the clauses will not come into effect until towards the end of the year or perhaps even next spring, which gives a certain time for development, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sure that the national parks committees will also take careful note of what he says.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 43

MEMBERSHIP OF NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES

Mr. Monro: I beg to move, amendment No. 192, in page 41, line 11, after 'are', insert
'members of relevant district councils (within the meaning of the said paragraph 12A) and are'.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We should at least put it on the record that there is a little concern about the balance of representation on national park authorities. I can well understand the pressure that the Minister has been under to ensure that representatives of district councils are included, but it is important that we maintain the national aspect and retain a balance between those who are on the authorities to represent the interests of people within the park and those who are on it to represent the national interest.
One-quarter of the money raised to pay for the work of the national park authorities comes from local sources and three-quarters comes from national sources. Therefore, we should make sure that there is at least three-quarters representation of national interests rather than local interests.
Although I very much welcome the provision for district councillors to be included, it should be made clear that if we tilt the balance too far in favour of the local interests, away from national interests, we should examine the way in which the national parks are funded. As they are of national as well as local importance, we must protect the national representation.

Amendment agreed to.

New Schedule

PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH ORDERS UNDER SECTION (MARINE NATURE RESERVE)

Consultation

1. Before making an order, the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as he may consider appropriate.

Publicity for draft orders

2.—(1) Before making an order, the Secretary of State shall prepare a draft of the order and give notice—

(a) stating that he proposes to make the order and the general effect of it;
(b) naming a place in the area in which the land to which the draft order relates is situated where a copy of the draft order, and of any byelaws made or proposed to be made by a relevant authority for the protection of the area specified in the draft order, may be inspected free of charge, and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge, at all reasonable hours; and
(c) specifying the time (not being less than 28 days from the date of the first publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect to the draft order may be made.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the notice to be given under sub-paragraph (1) shall be given—

(a) by publication in the Gazette and also at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the draft order relates is situated;
(b) by serving a like notice on—

(i) every person in whom is vested an interest in or right over any of that land;
(ii) every relevant authority whose area includes any of that land; and
(iii) such other bodies as may be prescribed or as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate; and

(c) by causing a copy of the notice to be displayed in a prominent position—

(i) at council offices in the locality of the land to which the draft order relates; and
(ii) at such other places as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State, may in any particular case, direct that it shall not be necessary to comply with sub-paragraph (2)(b) (i).

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) shall be complied with not less than 28 days before the expiration of the time specified in the notice.

Unopposed orders

3. If no representations or objections are duly made, or if any so made are withdrawn, the Secretary of State may make the order with or without modifications.

Opposed orders

4.—(1) If any representation or objection duly made is not withdrawn the Secretary of State shall, before making the order, either—

(a) cause a local inquiry to be held; or
(b) afford any person by whom a representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(2) On considering any representations or objections duly made and the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or hear representations or objections, the Secretary of State may make the order with or without modifications.

Restriction on power to make orders with modifications

5.—(1) The Secretary of State shall not make an order with modifications so as—

(a) to affect land not affected by the draft order; or
(b) to authorise the making of any byelaw not authorised by the draft order,

except after complying with the requirements of sub-paragraph (2).

(2) The said requirements are that the Secretary of State shall—

(a) give such notice as appears to him requisite of his proposal so to modify the order, specifying the time (which shall not be less than 28 days from the date of the first publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which representations or objections with respect to the proposal may be made;


(b) hold a local inquiry or afford any person by whom any representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose; and
(c) consider the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations or objections.

Local inquiries

6.—(1) The provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 or subsections (4) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (which relate to the giving of evidence at, and defraying the cost of, local inquiries) shall apply in relation to any inquiry held under paragraph 4 or 5 as they apply in relation to a local inquiry which a Minister causes to be held under subsection (1) of that section.

(2) A local inquiry caused to be held under paragraph 4 or 5 before the making of an order may be held concurrently with any local inquiry caused to be held before the confirmation of byelaws made by a relevant authority for the protection of the area specified in the order.

Notice of making of orders

7.—(1) As soon as practicable after an order is made, the Secretary of Stale shall give notice—

(a) describing the general effect of the order as made and stating the date on which it took effect; and
(b) naming a place in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated where a copy of the order as made may be inspected free of charge, and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge, at all reasonable hours.

(2) A notice under sub-paragraph (1) shall be given—

(a) by publication in the manner required by paragraph 2(2)(a);
(b) by serving a like notice on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 2(2)(b); and
(c) by causing like notices to be displayed in the like manner as the notices required to be displayed under paragraph 2(2)(c).

Proceedings for questioning validity of orders

8.—If any person is aggrieved by an order which has taken effect and desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of section (Marine nature reserves) or that any of the requirements of this Schedule have not been complied with in relation to it, he may within 42 days from the date of publication of the notice under paragraph 7 make an application to the Court under this paragraph.

(2) On any such application the Court may, if satisfied that the order is not within those powers or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with those requirements—

(a) in England and Wales, quash the order, or any provision of the order, either generally or in so far as it affects the interests of the appliant; or
(b) in Scotland, make such declarator as seems to the Court to be appropriate.

(3) Except as provided by this paragraph, the validity of an order shall not he questioned in any legal proceedings whatever.

(4) In this paragraph "the Court" means the High Court in relation to England and Wales and the Court of Session in relation to Scotland.

Supplemental

9.—(1) In this Schedule—
area" includes district;
council offices" means offices or buildings acquired or provided by a local authority;
the Gazette" means—

(a) if the order relates in whole or in part to England and Wales, the London Gazette;
(b) if the order relates in whole or in part to Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette;


order" means an order under section (Marine nature reserves);
prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
and expressions to which a meaning is assigned by section (Marine nature reserves) have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that section.

(2) References in this Schedule to land include references to any waters covering it; and for the purposes of this Schedule any area in Great Britain which is bounded by tidal waters or parts of the sea shall be taken to include—


(a) the waters adjacent to that area up to the seaward limits of territorial waters; and
(b) the land covered by the said adjacent waters.

(3) Regulations under this Schedule shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20

APPOINTMENT OF WARDENS FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

'A local authority may appoint such numbers of persons as appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act its wardens as respects a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic which is both in the countryside and in the area of the authority, and the purpose for which the wardens may be so appointed is to advise and assist the public in connection with the use of the path or way.'.—[Mr. Monro]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Monro: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendment No. 119.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I am very disappointed with the clause, because it says only "may appoint … wardens". It is important that the footpaths be properly protected. In the centres of our cities and towns we rely on our local authorities to maintain parking discipline, whether or not it costs them money on the rates. However reluctant I am to suggest additional expenditure, I should like to see a requirement that local authorities appoint wardens to make sure that the footpaths are kept open for the general public.
What powers will the wardens have? Many responsible citizens belonging to rambling organisations find that they meet not only barbed wire and other physical obstructions but signs such as "Fowl pest", "Swine fever" and "Foot and mouth disease", which are sometimes left up for years. It is wrong that farmers should be allowed to get away with this behavour. Being responsible people, the ramblers keep well away. I have heard of one farm that had not been known to keep fowls for the past 20 years but had had such a sign for two or three years.
The local authorities should be vigilant and ensure that proper facilities are provided for the public. It is wrong that the ramblers and others should not have the free access to the countryside that is their right.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

PUBLICATION OF DEDICATION OF FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS

'At the end of section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 (creation of footpath or bridleway by agreement) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
'"(6) As soon as may be after the dedication of a footpath or bridleway in accordance with a public path creation agreement, the local authority who are party to the agreement shall give notice of the dedication by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the agreement relates is situated.".'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

AMENDMENT OF ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1967

'(1) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (traffic regulation orders outside Greater London) after the words "London" there shall be inserted the words "(but subject to subsection (1A) of this section)".

(2) After the said subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) A traffic regulation order as respects a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic shall be subject to the provisions of Schedule 2A to this Act".

(3) In section 6 of the said Act of 1967 (traffic regulation orders in Greater London) after the word "London" there shall be inserted the words "(but subject to subsection (1A) of this section)".

(4) After subsection (1) of the said section 6 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) An order under subsection (1) above as respects a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic shall be subject to the provisions of Schedule 2A to this Act".

(5) In subsection (6) of section 12 of the said Act of 1967 (temporary prohibition or restriction of traffic on roads) after the word "above" where it appears for the first time there shall be inserted the words "(other than an order in relaton to a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic)".

(6) After the said subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(6A) An order under subsections (1) or (4) above in relation to a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic shall not continue in force for a longer period than three months from the date of making thereof save that where an application is made by the highway authority in accordance with paragraphs 4 to 9 of Schedule 3 to this Act the order shall continue in force until the application is determined by the Minister.
This subsection does not apply to Scotland.

(7) In subsection (1) of section 84B of the said Act of 1967 (consent of appropriate Minister to certain orders) there shall be inserted at the beginning the words "Subject to section 1(1A) of this Act,".

(8) In the said subsection (1) after the words "sections 1," there shall be inserted the words "(other than an order affecting a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic)".

(9) In subsection (6) of the said section 84B there shall be inserted at the beginning the words "Subject to section 1(1A) of this Act".

(10) in subsection (1) of the said section 104 of the said Act of 1967 (general interpretation provisions) after the definition of "bridleway" there shall be inserted the following—
'byway open to traffic' means a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, but which is used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used".

(11) After Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1967 there shall be inserted the following Schedule:—
Schedule 2A.
Orders relating to footpaths, bridleways and byways open to all traffic.

1. Before making a traffic regulation (in this Schedule referred to as an "order") for a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic (in this Schedule referred to as a "way") an authority shall, not less than 28 days before the order is made, cause notice of their intention to make an order to be published in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the way is situated and to be displayed in a prominent position at the ends of so much of any way as would be affected by the order.

2. The notice shall specify the time, not being less than 28 days from the date of publication of the notice, within which and the manner within which objections or representations with respect to the order may be made.

3. If no representations or objections are duly made, or if any so made are withdrawn, the order shall come into force on the date specified therein.

4.—(1) If an objection or representation is duly made and not withdrawn the authority shall submit the order to the Minister for confirmation by him.

(2) Where an order is submitted to the Minister under sub-paragraph (1) he shall either—

(a) cause a local inquiry to be held; or
(b) afford any person by whom an objection or representation was duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.

(3) On considering any objections or representations duly made and the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry and hear the objections or representations, the Minister may confirm the order, with or without modifications.

5. As soon as practicable after receiving notice of a decision to confirm an order from the Minister, the authority shall give notice of the decision and the date on which the order comes into force, in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the way is situated.

6. In this Schedule "authority" means the authority having power to make an order under sections 1 or 6 of this Act, as the case may be, other than the Minister."

(12) In Schedule 3 to the said Act of 1967 (notification of temporary traffic restrictions) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—

"4. If a highway authority wishes an order to which section 12(6A) applies to continue in force for a longer period than three months they shall first obtain the consent of the Minister and comply with the provisions of paragraphs 5 to 9 of this Schedule.

5. Not less than 28 days before the order ceases to be in force the highway authority shall cause notice of their intention to apply for the consent of the Minister for the order to be continued in force for such a period as is specified in the notice to be published in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic is situated, and to be displayed in a prominent position at the ends of so much of any way as is affected by the order.

6. The notice shall specify the time (being not less than 28 days from the date of publication of the notice) within which, and the manner within which, objections or representations with respect to the application may be made to the Minister.

7. If no objections or representations are duly made, or if any so made are withdrawn, the Minister may give his consent to the continuing in force of the order for the period specified in the notice published in accordance with paragraph 6.

8. (i) If any objection or representation duly made is not withdrawn the Minister shall either:—

(a) cause a local inquiry to be held; or
(b) afford any person by whom an objection or representation has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose.

(ii) On considering any objections or representations duly made and the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or hear objections or representations, the Minister may give his consent to the continuing in force of the order for such periods as he considers appropriate.

9. As soon as practicable after receiving notice from the Minister of his decision to give consent in accordance with paragraph 8(ii) the highway authority shall cause notice of the fact to be published in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area, stating the period during which the order continues in force and the day on which it ceases to be in force.".'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
If the Minister were to indicate acceptance of the new clause, I could make a short speech. If he is not prepared to do so, I shall put the arguments briefly.
The problem arises from the way in which local authorities have powers to close footpaths temporarily. There has been much argument about this. The Spicer


committee made representations to the Minister, but unfortunately at that stage he was unable to accept its proposals. That was a pity, as it was an agreed set of proposals.
A whole series of appeal procedures accompany a permanent closure, but there is no effective appeal procedure for temporary closure. In addition, a temporary measure can be extended without any publicity. As a result, there is a tendency for temporary measures to become permanent through repeated renewals.
The new clause seeks to ensure that if a temporary closure is renewed, there will be the right of appeal so that footpath users have the right to object if they feel that a local authority is abusing its powers. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will accept the new clause.
The Minister may suggest that the wording is not correct, but he could accept it at this stage and put that right in the other place.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of temporary closures. Temporary orders can be made only in certain specified circumstances on account of works on or near the highway, public danger or risk of serious damage to the highway. Authorities are specifically required to have regard to the existence of alternative routes suitable for the traffic that would be affected by any such orders. Ministerial consent is required for extensions beyond three months, and such consent would not be given unless there were good reasons to justify such an extension.
We have no evidence that local authorities abuse their existing traffic regulation order powers, and we have no reason to think that they would be likely to abuse the extended power; provided by clause 55. We therefore do not consider that the bureaucratic procedure outlined in the new clause is necessary.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 24

CONTINUED WILFUL OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

'(1) In section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (penalty of wilful obstruction) there shall be inserted after subsection (1) the following subsections —
(1A) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) which relates to the wilful obstruction of a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic and the offence is continued after the conviction he is guilty of a further offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £10 for each day on which the offence is so committed.
(1B) On convicting a person of an offence under subsection (1) of this section which relates to the wilful obstruction of a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic, or of an offence under subsection (1A) of this section, a magistrates court shall have power to order the removal of the obstruction

(2) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(3) in this section 'byway open to all traffic' means a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic but which is used by the pubic mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used.".'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on this new clause. It is important, because at present people

are flouting the law and getting away with it. People ate concerned that, when they go into the countryside, footpaths are deliberately obstructed by the landowner. It is especially sad that some local authorities do not pursue the clearing of such footpaths with a great deal of diligence, and neither do they pursue with diligence the bringing of prosecutions to ensure that such footpaths are available for public use. Even when prosecutions are brought, the powers of the courts are limited and do not allow for the removal of the obstruction.
We do not want someone punished for such an offence. We want them to stop doing it. Instead of imposing a court sentence which involves a fine, it would be far better if the court had the power to ensure that the obstruction was removed.
The new clause therefore seeks to provide that where a person clearly wilfully sets out to obstruct a public right of way there shall be powers for the courts to order that the obstruction should be removed and people should have free passage over the right of way.
I very much hope that the Minister will accept the new clause.

Mr. Neil Thorne: If my hon. Friend the Minister has had time to collect his thoughts, is he now able to answer my earlier question on new clause 20 as to what powers the wardens will have under that proposal?

Mr. Stephen Ross: I merely wish to say what an eminently sensible proposal this is. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
We all know of cases in which certain landowners—and they are the great exception—can be extremely obstinate I can think of a case in my constituency in which a farmer ploughed up 900-odd acres of land which used to be pasture and put barbed wire across at least three footpaths. We never got two of those footpaths back. We have never had an authority which was prepared to go to the limit.
The new clause gives power to remove the obstruction. Presumably, if the farmer then puts it back he would be in contempt of court. If we are serious about access to the countryside and keeping our footpaths open, we must accept that there are a few cases in which obstruction takes place and bloodymindedness is involved and in which local authorities do not wish to go to the limit.

Mr. Marks: Was the farmer a member of the authority?

Mr. Ross: In this particular case, he was not. He is still going strong, too. He came from Lincolnshire. That is why he has ploughed everything up.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: We are very stubborn.

Mr. Ross: Yes, indeed. He came from quite near the hon. Gentleman's part of the world.
I believe that this is a sensible proposal and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Cryer: I, too, endorse new clause 24. It seems eminently sensible. All of us who have any kind of rural area in our constituencies have experienced difficulties about footpaths and wilful obstruction. The new clause gives as a reserve power the right to take action reasonably speedily without a great deal of bureaucratic procedure, for which the Minister criticised a previous new clause


with much the same aim, to ensure that footpaths should be kept open and that no means should be used to prevent their being kept available.
The Minister should therefore have some sympathy with this proposal. As before, if there is any defect in the wording, I am sure that if the Minister accepts the principle behind it any slight amendments which may be necessary can be added later. I hope that he will treat the proposal with sympathy and accept it.

Mr. Hardy: I wish briefly to point out to the Minister that the word "wilful" appears in the new clause. We are not talking about accidental obstruction or breach of law because people do not realise what they are doing.
The Conservative Party has long maintained its adherence to the principles of law and order. An offence which is wilfully committed is therefore surely one that the Government cannot logically oppose or consistently ignore.
For that reason, the Minister should seriously consider my hon. Friend's point. If he wishes to change the wording to get the phraseology technically correct, that is certainly all right with us, but if he ignores my hon. Friend's proposal people will be encouraged to carry out these acts, wilfully or otherwise.

Mr. Monro: First, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) asked about wardens. They are there to advise and assist the public and landowners in the use of footpaths, byways and so on. They perform a valuable service, much of it carried out voluntarily nowadays in our national parks. I am sure that this discretionary power will be valuable to the authorities in the future.
Although the new clause applies only to public paths and byways open to all traffic, it amends legislation that pertains to all classes of highway and should, strictly speaking, be considered in the context of that legislation. It raises the question whether, in principle, the law on obstruction of public rights of way should be different from that applying to other classes of highway.
Under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980, highway authorities have a duty to assist and protect the right of the public to the use and enjoyment of all highways. They are also required to prevent as far as possible the stopping-up or obstruction of highways. In addition, in the fulfilment of those duties authorities are empowered to take legal proceedings or take whatever alternative steps they consider are appropriate. Moreover, under section 143 of the Act they have specific powers to secure the removal of obstructions including the power to remove the obstruction themselves if the person responsible does not comply with their request to do so. The exercise of those powers is not, of course, dependent on a conviction in the courts. In the circumstances, I do not think it appropriate to confer similar powers on magistrates.
As regards the purpose of the new subsection (1A), the offence in section 137(1) of the Highways Act is not suitable for the application of a daily penalty. Such penalties are appropriate to only a limited category of offences; and even then the complexity surrounding their application makes them uncertain and unpopular with the courts.
For a daily penalty to be applied by a court, the offence must be one of omission which is capable of continuation

and one of which such continuation is capable of proof. A daily penalty cannot be applied in respect of an offence which, like that in question, arises from the commission of an unlawful act. Such an offence is, by definition, one which is committed once and for all and is capable only of repetition, not of continuation. Repeated offences under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 should be prosecuted separately with the offender liable to the maximum substantive fine on each occasion.
The 1980 Act, which has not been in force for long, fully covers the concern of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). If authorities fulfil their duties—and we have always been concerned about those duties being fulfilled—there should be no major difficulty in removing obstructions, whether permanent or temporary. I suggest that the new clause is unnecessary and that the hon. Gentleman should not press it.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister read his brief as if he knew nothing about it and was unconvinced by it. He left us all thinking that we should vote for the new clause.
I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who is an expert on transport legislation, that the 1980 Act was a consolidation measure. If so, the power on which the Minister is relying existed before 1980 and has rarely been effective. Therefore, we ought not to accept the main burden of the hon. Gentleman's answer.
When a highway authority fails to secure the removal of an obstruction, the only lawful action left to an individual is to take out a private prosecution under section 137 of the 1980 Act. That cannot be satisfactory.
We are talking, as my hon. Friend said, about someone who is wilfully obstructing a right of way or a public footpath and, even though convicted, refuses to remove that obstruction. Therefore, this is a law and order point and it is eminently suitable that in such cases, first, the prosecution should not be left to the private individual. It should be within the capacity of the highway authority or local authority to bring the prosecution. Secondly, where the wilful obstruction continues, even after conviction, there should be a daily penalty so that society can register its serious concern and, thirdly, power should be given to the courts to order the removal of the obstruction. That is being suggested here.
10.45 pm
Millions of people who have access to the countryside are worried about the ploughing up of footpaths, the obstructions that are put in their way, and the disappearance of footpaths despite our definitive maps, which has been happening at a growing rate. They are asking us to ensure that we do something about it.
It is correct for us to have this debate, even at this late hour. Although I did not believe this a short time ago, I am beginning to believe that I should press the amendment to a Division, because in another place hundreds of amendments were tabled on part I and part II. We discussed the Bill in Committee for over 100 hours. Almost all that time was taken up with part I—the protection of rare species, which we are all keen on—and part II about marine nature reserves and areas of special scientific interest, Sandford and so on.
Neither in another place nor in the House have we yet given a proper, fair hearing to the views of those who want access to the countryside—ramblers, campers and so on. Even though it is late, if my hon. Friend presses the


amendment to a Division and although there will not be a large number voting on this almost the last day of Parliament before we go into the long recess, it behoves the House to play fair with those who want access to the countryside, especially those from the towns and cities. They are anxious that we give as much consideration to their rights as we have given to the rights of bird watchers and those interested in flora, fauna and marine reserves.
The Minister's reply has been extremely disappointing. It is time for us, on behalf of ramblers, campers and sightseers, to register our grave concern that if the Minister cannot do better than he has done, we shall change our advice and advise my hon. Friend to change his mind.

Mr. Monro: What is sometimes so disappointing about the right hon. Gentleman is that he tends to forget all the pluses that are in the Bill which help all those interested in the countryside. It is no use hon. Gentlemen turning up at this time when we have been debating the Bill for a second day and many hours in Committee. The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that we have not been giving consideration to those who wish to use footpaths.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to read the deliberations of the Spicer committee and the immense amount of trouble that many hon. Members and others interested in the countryside and conservation put into the Spicer Committee on ways of dealing with many of the controversial issues about footpaths.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose—

Mr. Monro: Count fifteen. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say at this time of night that we have taken no interest in the rights of those who want to go into the countryside. That is manifestly incorrect. He is wrong to start raising the temperature of the House on an irrelevant point.

Mr. Spearing: There have been many changes to different aspect; of the Bill. This debate concerns the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), in whom I have vested a great deal of confidence. The answer by the Minister appears to be unsatisfactory and illogical. I ask him to accept what appears to be a sensible and adequate new clause.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman is within his rights to ask me to accept the new clause, but I fear that he will not get the answer he seeks. I have given clear reasons. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is right in saying that the 1980 Act was a consolidation measure. That was known. It brought to the notice of the public the fact that the legislation was available.
Hon. Members have frequently found that Acts dealing with bird protection and other conservation matters have been available for years but have not been used as often as might have been hoped to fulfil the wishes of Parliament. This is not, however, a new clause that I wish to accept.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not the case that the new clause would cre ate an offence of a continuing nature and that for every day on which the offence was committed evidence would have to be given in court before a fine could be imposed? The nature of the new clause means that it will not be practical.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am advised that this would be so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister's response was extremely disappointing. Most hon. Members will feel that substantial improvements have been made to parts I and II of the Bill. Ramblers and walkers, however, are disappointed with part III. They had believed that the proposals of the previous Labour Government for footpaths contained reasonable compromises but then found that many of the compromises were "welshed on" by various groups that found they could press their objections with a new Government. Many of the compromises were lost.
Many of the clauses put forward in the original Government proposals were unacceptable to walkers. After much effort, some of the worst provisions went removed in the other place. However, most walkers would prefer not to see part III, even as it stands. They feel disgruntled that time after time they are asked to compromise only to find that if the compromise does not suit another group they are asked to make a further compromise. The Minister should consider the attitude of walkers.
In the 1930s, walkers found that they received little from the Government and started to take matters into their own hands with mass walks on the Peak and Kinder Scout. Many regular weekend walkers are beginning to say that the Government seem little concerned about them and prefer to put every obstruction in their way. It occurs to them that rather than trying to get the law changed they should start taking matters into their own hands.
When someone behaves illegally by blocking a footpath repeatedly and wilfully, walkers have a right to demand that the Government should take action. The Minister's only response is to say that legislation already exists. However, that legislation has not given walkers the protection that they demand. It has failed. The drafting of the new clause may not be perfect, but there is still time for the Minister to rectify that situation in the other place. I appeal to the Minister to accept the new clause. If he refuses, I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in voting for it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 106.

Division No. 297]
[10.54 pm


AYES


Beith, A. J.
Marks, Kenneth


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Morton, George


Cryer, Bob
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Donald
Soley, Clive


Dormand, Jack
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Tinn, James


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Graham, Ted
Welsh, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Winnick, David


Haynes, Frank



Howell, Rt Hon D.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Kerr, Russell
Mr. Nigel Spearing


Leighton, Ronald





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Ancram, Michael
Berry, Hon Anthony






Biggs-Davison, John
Murphy, Christopher


Blackburn, John
Neale, Gerrard


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Needham, Richard


Bright, Graham
Neubert, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Newton, Tony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Normanton, Tom


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Onslow, Cranley


Buck, Antony
Osborn, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Colvin, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Cope, John
Renton, Tim


Cranborne, Viscount
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dorrell, Stephen
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Dover, Denshore
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Durant, Tony
Rossi, Hugh


Farr, John
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodlad, Alastair
Silvester, Fred


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Sims, Roger


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Speed, Keith


Gummer, John Selwyn
Speller, Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hastings, Stephen
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hawkins, Paul
Stainton, Keith


Hawksley, Warren
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heddle, John
Stevens, Martin


Hill, James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hooson, Tom
Tebbit, Norman


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Thompson, Donald


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Waddington, David


Le Marchant, Spencer
Wakeham, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Watson, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


Lyell, Nicholas
Wheeler, John


MacGregor, John
Whitney, Raymond


Major, John
Wickenden, Keith


Marland, Paul
Wilkinson, John


Marlow, Tony
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Mather, Carol
Winterton, Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Mellor, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Meyer, Sir Anthony



Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Tellers for the Noes:


Moate, Roger
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Monro, Hector
and


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 25

LONG DISTANCE ROUTES

'(1) For section 51 of the 1949 Act there shall be substituted the following section:—
51. (1) A long distance route is a route made up of public rights of way and other highways which for the whole or greater part of its length does not pass along roads mainly used by motor vehicles and over which extensive journeys on foot, on horseback or on bicycle may be made by the public.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Commission to consider what long distance routes should be designated for the enjoyment of the public and to make and submit to the Secretary of State orders designating such routes, hereinafter referred to as 'long distance route orders'.

(3) A long distance route order shall contain a map, on such a scale as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State, showing the proposed route, and defining those parts thereof over which there exists a public right of way, and indicating in each case the nature of that right, and shall be accompanied by a report prepared by the Commission setting out such proposals as the Commission may think fit—

(a) for the maintenance or improvement of any public right of way along which the route passes;
(b) for the provision and operation of ferries where they are needed for completing the route;
(c) for the provision of accommodation, meals and refreshments along the route;
(d) for the restriction of motor traffic on existing highways along which the route passes;

and containing an estimate, in such form as the Secretary of State may require, of the capital outlay likely to be incurred in carrying out any such proposals contained therein as are listed above or of creating such new public paths as may be required, of the annual cost of maintaining any existing public paths or byways open to all traffic along which the route passes and any new public paths provided for by orders made under subsection (6) of this section, and of the annual expenditure likely to be incurred by local authorities in connection with the provision and operation of ferries, and the provision of accommodation, meals and refreshments, so far as those matters are provided for by the proposals.

(4) Before a long distance route order is submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, the Commission shall give notice in the prescribed form stating that it has been made and requires confirmation by the Secretary of State, naming places in the locality of the proposed route where copies of the order, the map referred to therein and the accompanying report may be inspected free of charge at all reasonable hours and purchased and specifying the time (not being less than fifty-six days from the date of publication or service of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect to the order and representations with respect to the proposals contained in the report may be made.

(5) Notice under subsection (4) above shall be given—

(a) by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area of each district or London borough council whose area includes any of the land to which the order relates;
(b) by serving a copy of the notice, together with copies of the order and of the report, to—

(i) every local authority whose area includes any of the land to which the order relates;
(ii) such other bodies as may be prescribed or as the Commission may consider appropriate;

(c) by sending to every owner and occupier of any land to which the order relates a copy of the notice together with sufficient other information as to identify the line of the proposed route across that land;
(d) by serving on the council of every parish or community on the proposed route, or the parish meeting of any such parish not having a separate parish council, a copy of the notice together with details of the proposed route in that parish or community;


(e) by placing a copy of the notice and of a map showing the route as whole in a prominent position at council offices in the locality of the land to which the order relates.

(6) Where a long distance route order proposes the establishment of a route over land over which there is no public right of way, the Commission shall make such public path creation orders as may be necessary for the provision of such public paths as may be required, and for this purpose only the Commission shall have power to act under section 26 of the Highways Act 1980 as if it were a local authority within the meaning of that section.

(7) Notice of any public path creation orders made by the Commission under subsection (6) above shall be given at the same time as notice is given under subsections (4) and (5) above of the corresponding long distances route order, and the time within which objections or representations with respect to the public path creation order may be made shall not expire before the closing date for objections and representations to the long distance route order.

(8) Before making a long distance route order or a public path creation order, and before preparing a report to accompany a long distance route order, the Commission shall consult every local authority through whose area the route passes and it shall be the duty of every such authority to furnish to the Commission such information as the Commission may require for the purposes of the order or report.".

(2) For section 52 of the 1949 Act there shall be substituted the following section:—
52 (1) If no representations or objections are duly made to a long distance route order, or if any so made are withdrawn, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, confirm the order with or without modifications.

(2) If any representation or objection duly made is not withdrawn, the Minister shall, before confirming the order, if the objection is made by a local authority cause a local inquiry to be held and in any other case either—

(a) cause a local inquiry to be held, or
(b) afford to any person by whom any representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose, and after considering the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations or objections, may confirm the order with or without modifications.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsections (1) and (2) above, the Secretary of State shall not confirm an order so as to affect land not affected by the order as submitted to him except after—

(a) giving such notice as appears to him requisite of his proposal so to modify the order, specifying the time (not being less than twenty-eight days) within which and the manner in which representations or objections to the proposal may be made;
(b) holding a local inquiry or affording to any person by whom any representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose; and
(c) considering the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations or objections, as the case may be.

(4) Any inquiry or hearing heard under subsections (2) or (3) above may also hear objections or representations with respect to any public path creation order made by the Commission under section 51 or where the Secretary of State proposes to modify a long distance route order, any draft public path creation order prepared by him to give effect to the proposed modification, and may, if the Secretary of State so determines, consider any representations made with respect to the report prepared by the Commission under subsection (3) of section 51.

(5) As soon as may be after a long distance route order has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, the Commission shall give notice in the prescribed form

stating that it has been confirmed and naming a place where a copy thereof as confirmed may be inspected at all reasonable hours.

(6) Notice of confirmation of an order under subsection (5) shall be given in the same manner as notice of the making of an order under section 51(4).

(7) Paragraphs 8 and 10 of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply to long distance route orders as if they were orders to which Parts I and II of that Schedule relates.

(8) Where the Secretary of State confirms a long distance route order, he shall also approve, with or without modifications, the proposals contained in the report accompanying the order, and such approved proposals are hereinafter referred to as 'approved proposals relating to a long distance route'.".

(3) For section 55 of the 1949 Act there shall be substituted the following section—
55.—(1) Where it appears to the Commission desirable that a long distance route order as confirmed by the Secretary of State should be varied they may make and submit to the Secretary of State an order varying the long distance route order, and such an order is hereinafter referred to as a 'long distance route variation order'.

(2) Subsections (3) to (8) of section 51 and section 52 shall apply to long distance route variation orders as they apply to long distance route orders, and any revised proposals relating to the route which are approved by the Secretary of State as a consequence of confirmation of a long distance route variation order shall be deemed to form part of the approved proposals relating to the route for the purposes of sections 53 and 54."

(4) After section 55 of the 1949 Act there shall be inserted the following section '—
(55A) In sections 51 and 52,
'local authority' means a county council, the Greater London Council, the council of a district or London borough, the Common Council and a joint planning board
'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.".'.—[Mr. Andrew, F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There are considerable problems for those concerned about part III of the Bill. It is clear that their views have been given less time for consideration than many other matters. It is only fair to those outside the House who spent a great deal of time making representations that I should spend a little time discussing the new clause.
I appreciate that many hon. Members feel that we have already spent a long time on the Bill. However, most of them have a considerable number of walkers and ramblers in their constituencies. They should be prepared to spend some time on the matter. I could easily reduce the time if the Minister said now that he would accept the new clause.
We must consider the whole question of long distance footpaths. With the opening of the Pennine Way, the idea of long distance walking, with people following a route for a week or a fortnight, has developed as a popular way of spending leisure time. The Pennine Way is an attractive route to follow either at one go or part by part. In spite of its tremendous success, and that of other routes such as the Offa's Dyke route, routes around the North Yorkshire moors and routes along the North and South Downs, there have been many problems with their establishment. It is a sad reflection that, although the route around the Somerset and North Devon coast was approved in January 1961 and officially opened in 1978, there are many sections where it is virtually impossible to follow the route that offers the full attractions that were intended when it was first designated.
The new clause sets out a new procedure for designating long distance routes that would ensure that all the problems were taken into account at the point at which the routes were designated. That is preferable to having a route approved in principle and then fighting over each inch of the way for individual approval, and often finding that instead of the route following the most attractive course it has to divert on to a roadway or follow footpaths that have far less attraction than the route warrants.
There is a need for the designation of many more long distance routes. We should be considering an effective procedure that ensures that from the point at which the principle is agreed there is an opportunity for all those concerned either to make representations in favour of the route or to oppose it if they feel that it may cause them problems if it passes over their land. The new clause sets out a method to do that which would avoid all the snags that occurred with many of the existing routes. It is appalling that routes designated 15 or 20 years ago have not yet been brought to fulfilment. We need a major advance in that area.
I was disappointed by the Minister's reply to new clause 24. I hope that there will be more sympathy for this new clause. Perhaps there could be more progress on some of the routes that have been designated but, in practice, still cannot be walked. Best of all would be an acceptance of the new clause.

Mr. Monro: I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). The new clause proposes radical changes to the current procedure for long distance routes. It requires the Countryside Commission to make creation orders for sections of proposed routes where no public rights of way currently exist before the Secretary of State has considered the merits of the route as a whole. It also requires new routes and all variations to existing routes to be subject to an order-making procedure involving public advertisements and the holding of public inquiries or hearings if any objections or representations are made and not withdrawn. We do not believe that such radical changes involving increased bureaucracy are necessary. Most variations to existing routes are made following consultation and agreement by the Countryside Commission with interested parties. It is better to secure rights of way by agreement and to use creation orders only as a last resort when negotiations have failed rather than to use such orders as the standard procedure.
One of the provisions of the new clause is that creation orders for new sections of long distance routes would be made by the Countryside Commission and not by local authorities. We recognise that where it does not prove possible to obtain agreement on the creation of a new section of route local authorities may be reluctant to proceed with a creation order. We are not dependent on local authorities being willing to make such an order. The Secretary of State has powers to make creation orders under section 26(2) of the Highways Act 1980 and the Department has already indicated that it will be willing to use these powers in appropriate cases.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister know how many times the powers have been used?

Mr. Monro: I cannot answer that question off the top of my head.
We are not satisfied that it is necessary for the commission to be given such powers. Several years ago the commission proposed that new legislation should be introduced to provide a quicker process for the creation of long distance routes. The Department was not unsympathetic to that objective and indicated a willingness to enter into discussions on possible changes. However, I understand that the commission is reconsidering its policy on long distance routes and does not currently wish to pursue its earlier proposals for changes in procedure.
I accept that we have had great success with the two routes in Norfolk, which are known as the Peddars Way and the Norfolk coast path, as well as with the Cambrian Way. These routes are in the programme. However, it would be wrong to make this major change to a system that has been working well and by agreement, which is the important factor, wherever possible. There are an enormous number of owners to deal with throughout the entire length of long distance routes. That means that there would be the likelihood of frequent inquiries. It would be far better to proceed by agreement than to adopt the new clause. Despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Stockport, North in producing this long new clause, the present arrangements seem to be satisfactory and the Countryside Commission is quite happy with them.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister read what sounded like the sort of brief that I used to be given when I had the responsibilities that the hon. Gentleman is carrying out. I shall demonstrate to the House why it is a totally misplaced brief and that the hon. Gentleman's confidence in it is misplaced.
In May 1978, when I was Minister of State, Department of the Environment, I had the great privilege of opening the Somerset and North Devon coast path. That path, which I opened by walking along it for a few miles along with many hundred others, was approved in January 1961. It took 17 years to open it. However, the Minister is saying that the system is working quite satisfactorily.
Since I opened the path, some extraordinary things have been happening. It took three years for Her Majesty's Stationery Office to publish the official guidebook. The map that is contained in the guidebook shows four categories of path: the Somerset and North Devon coast path, the alternative path, a temporary path and a proposed path. The map shows five sections of alternative path, often where there is no official path or where the author of the guide has found a path that he prefers instead of the official one that I thought that I had opened three years ago. What a ludicrous state of affairs it is. It is totally unsatisfactory. What complacency it is for the Government and even the Department to ask the Minister to tell us that all is well.
11.15 pm
The situation concerning the Somerset and North Devon coast path which I have outlined is worse on some of the other long distance paths which we have been talking about. Because of time, I shall confine myself to mentioning for the record the other long distance paths where the interested organisations and large numbers of the public, particularly ramblers, believe that there should be a tremendous acceleration in the pace of making and opening such paths.
There are the Ribble Way, from the estuary to the Pennine Way in Ribblesdale, a route which follows the line of Hadrian's Wall, Peddars Way and the North


Norfolk coast path from Thetford to Cromer, the extensions of the South Downs Way west of Winchester and of the Ridgeway path north-east to Cambridge and south-west to Lyme Regis to meet the South-West Way. All those are major long distance pathways still waiting to get off the ground, if I may use that expression, or waiting to be properly mapped and opened.
In those circumstances, we cannot possibly be as complacent as the Minister would like us to be. We must express our concern that the slow pace which I have outlined in some cases seems to be persisting.
Although I do not imagine that we shall press the amendment in view of the time and as there are still more important matters affecting ramblers to discuss, I assure the Minister that some of us will take early opportunities in the House to return as soon as may be to this unsatisfactory state of affairs with regard to long distance pathways.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Once again, I am disappointed by the Minister's reply, particularly because he said that we were making excellent progress with Peddars Way in East Anglia, and with the Cambrian Way.
No one has yet announced the route for the Cambrian Way. From the moment the Countryside Commission puts forward the route, how long will it take before people will be able to walk it? Will it be 20 years, the time we have had to wait for the South-West coastal path? If the Minister could give us a guarantee that under existing procedures the time from which the Countryside Commission announced its proposals for the Cambrian Way to the time one could walk the whole length along the preferred route would be only five years, people would have sympathy with the Minister's point of view. However, my suspicion is that, under the existing procedures, we shall be talking in terms of another 20 years before we can have the Cambrian Way.
The Minister knows full well the amount of time that has been taken arguing about merely an access agreement to the Arans, which has gone on in Mid-Wales for about five years. That argument has been about trying to get a voluntary agreement, which has not been achieved. Therefore, it is time that the Minister had another think about major areas of footpaths to ensure that people have the long distance routes which they want, in view of the number of people who follow the Pennine Way, Offa's Dyke and many other footpaths.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 27

DEPICTION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY INFORMATION ON ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Ordnance Survey to depict, so far as is practicable, footpaths, bridleways, roads used as public paths and byways open to all traffic on maps produced for sale to the public at the scales of 1:25,000 and 1:50,000, and to keep such information up to date as a consequence of the receipt of confirmed public path orders or confirmed orders made under this Part of this Act.

(2) Nothing in this section shall place upon the Ordnance Survey a duty to depict information relating to footpaths, bridleways, roads used as public paths or byways open to all traffic on any series of maps on which such information was not shown on the date of passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 90, in schedule 14, page 103, line 13, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations made under sub-paragraph (1) above shall include provisions for a copy of each confirmed order to he sent to the Ordnance Survey.'.

Mr. Bennett: Having spoken to the last new clause and not having received much help from the Minister, I shall not speak to the new clause in the hope that this time I shall have some sympathy from the Minister. If I do not, no doubt I will be able to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Monro: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). My comments will not be particularly forthcoming.
Broadly speaking, the more information that is packed on to a map, the less clear it is and the less attractive it may be to a purchaser. They are experienced people in the Ordnance Survey. They have to make a technical and commercial judgment.

Mr. Denis Howell: ; No doubt it is because the people in the Ordnance Survey are experienced and efficient that the Government propose to interfere with their activities.

Mr. Monro: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman is misinformed about developments in that respect.
By and large, the Ordnance Survey produces its maps for sale in two scales—1:25,000 and 1:50,000. It has to keep its information up to date as much as possible. It is extremely difficult to do so with all the footpaths that hon. Gentlemen may like to see changed from time to time. ft has to make a commercial judgment on what information it puts on its maps. Having given the matter careful consideration, it feels that it is providing all that is required by the general public on the two scales for which it has the most sale. It would be unreasonable to place a further statutory duty on the Ordnance Survey to change its policy. At present it has no statutory duty to publish a particular series, so it would be going further than is reasonable in this legislation to force it to do so.
I am particularly interested in maps and map making, and I enjoy buying and studying them, but it would be wrong to force the Ordnance Survey to include information on maps that in its commercial judgment it feels would not be to its advantage.
I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman yet again to withdraw his new clause. I appreciate that he feels that the


Government have been unresponsive on a number of his amendments, but he must not forget that we have made substantial changes in the Bill and that there are more Government amendments to come which will be helpful to those interested in the countryside.

Mr. Spearing: I, too, am interested in maps. I have spent a great deal of time studying them. Perhaps an even greater humiliation, I spent 14 years teaching people to read them before I became a Member. I am surprised by the Minister's reply.
Certainly maps on the scale 1:50,000—my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) will correct me if it is not on the 1:25,000 scale as well—show where a public right of way or bridleway is also a defined statutory public right of way. Indeed, for some years they have incorporated the statutory definitive maps, which I believe are at the old six-inch scale, on a county basis.
The additional information that shows that they are public rights of way consists of interpolated red dots along the right of way, superimposed on the conventional sign for the footway, bridleway or whatever it may be. As that is done already, I do not understand how additional information, which would be a duty as far as practicable in the new clause, would clutter up the maps. It would merely show additional rights of way that are not shown on the existing maps.
The Ordnance Survey has for many hundreds of years been a public service. It provides a good deal of basic statutory information on which certified extracts are given, at a charge, to legal organisations that reprint the maps as part of their statutory duties. Indeed, when we come to the Dockland orders tonight we shall have such an extract for use in the House.
Where there is a statutory provision relating to footpaths or bridleways, is it not almost a first obligation on the Ordnance Survey to place statutory information on the map, even above some other information, because, useful though it is, it is not a statutory feature of the landscape? So far from thinking that the clause should be rejected because it would make the map less readable or less useful, I suggest that, first, it would be equally as readable as the present maps, and, secondly, it would be more useful, because people using the maps would at least be able to say "It is not in doubt. That has been at one time declared a statutory right of way, and we can use it, obstructions permitting, with a clear conscience."
I find the Minister's reasons for resisting the clause arcane, impractical and unconvincing.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not know whether the Minister intended to say nothing about amendment No. 90. Perhaps it is my fault for speaking so briefly that I did not press the matter. I should have thought that he could accept it. Where orders are made designating footpaths, it would be common sense to make sure that they were passed on to the Ordnance Survey so that if it wanted to it could put them on its maps.
The Minister's reply was unconvincing. He said that it should be left to the Ordnance Survey to make up its mind whether it put the footpaths on the map. Even if he takes the most congested area of footpaths and the 1:50,000 map, he will see that there is no problem in putting the little red dots on the map to indicate the footpaths without causing major confusion.
There may be some difficulty about the 1:50,000 map. I shall concede that if the hon. Gentleman will concede that the Ordnance Survey must have an absolute duty with regard to the 1:25,000 map, which it now sells as the "Pathfinder" map; it renamed it to make it clear that it was ideal for finding the path. Now the hon. Gentleman says that the Ordnance Survey wants to reserve the right not to put footpaths on that map. How does one find a footpath if it is not on the map?
If the Minister is concerned about the Ordnance Survey and the way in which it is to sell its "Pathfinder" map, he should make it absolutely clear that every right of way will be shown on that map and that it has the big advantage of showing not only the rights of way but field boundaries and is the one on which anyone who goes into the countryside has a good chance of finding the route, causing least problem to the landowner or farmer and getting the maximum amount of enjoyment.
It is very disappointing that the Minister will not at least consider giving the Ordnance Survey the duty to put footpaths on one of those maps. The alternative is for people to start pressing the local authority to publish a special footpath map for its area. I accept that we have had minor concessions on that in other parts of the Bill, but it is duplication when we have the Ordnance Survey with the maps. We should have a simple, workable procedure if we had a guarantee that all footpaths would be put on the 1:25,000 map and the Minister included in the legislation a duty, when footpath orders are made, for that information to be passed on to the Ordnance Survey.
I am disappointed by the Minister's attitude. However, I shall not press the new clause to a vote, though I hope to move amendment No. 90.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28

BODIES TO BE NOTIFIED OF PUBLIC PATH AND DEFINITIVE MAP ORDERS

The bodies to be notified of the making and confirmation of public paths orders and of orders made under this Part shall include—

(i) in relation to the whole of England and Wales, the British Horse Society, the Byways and Bridleways Trust, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Ramblers' Association and the Trail Riders Fellowship;
(ii) in relation to the districts of Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Buckinghamshire and Wycombe in the county of Buckinghamshire, the districts of Dacorum and Three Rivers in the county of Hertfordshire and the district of South Oxfordshire in the county of Oxfordshire, the Chiltern Society;
(iii) in relation to the county of Derbyshire, the Derbyshire Footpath Preservation Society;
(iv) in relation to the districts of High Peak, North East Derbyshire and West Derbyshire in the county of Derbyshire, the districts of Macclesfield and Vale Royal in the county of Cheshire and the county of Greater Manchester, the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society;
(v) in relation to the districts of Chester, Crewe and Nantwich and Vale Royal in the county of Cheshire, the Mid-Cheshire Footpath Society;
(vi) in relation to the county of Oxfordshire, the Oxford Fieldpaths Society;
(vii) in relation to the counties of East Sussex and West Sussex, the Sussex Rights of Way Group;
(viii) in relation to the county of Kent, the Kent Rights of Way Council;


(ix) in relation to the county of Nottinghamshire, the Nottinghamshire Footpath Preservation Society;
(x) in relation to the district of Malvern Hills in the county of Hereford and Worcester, the Malvern Hills District Footpath Society;
(xi) in relation to the county of Leicestershire, the Leicestershire Footpath Association;
(xii) in relation to the district of New Forest in the county of Hampshire, the Ringwood and Fordingbridge Footpath Society;
(xiii) in relation to the district of Wigan in the county of Grater Manchester, the Wigan Footpath Society.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following:

Amendment No. 246, in schedule 14, page 98, line 40, leave out from 'serving' to 'and' in line 2 on page 99 and insert
'on—

(i) every owner and occupier of any of that land, a like notice together with a copy of so much of the order as relates to the land owned or occupied, as the case may be;
(ii) every local authority whose area includes any of that land, a like notice together with a copy of so much of the order as relates to the land in the area of the authority;
(iii) such other bodies as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate, a like notice together with a copy of the order;'.

Government amendments Nos. 298 and 299.

Amendment No. 247, in page 99, line 2, leave out 'and' and insert—
'(iv) any person who has signified by prepayment to the authority of such reasonable charge as the authority may determine that he wishes to receive a copy of any such notice, or, where the authority is a county council, such notices as relate to a particular district within the area of the authority, a like notice; and'.

Government amendments Nos. 300 to 302.

Amendment No. 248, in page 102, line 32, at end insert—
'(2A) If the order has been modified by the Secretary of State the notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (2)(b) of this paragraph shall be accompanied—

(i) in the case of every owner and occupier of any land to which the modification relates, by a copy of so much of the order as confirmed as relates to the land owned or occupied, as the case may be;
(ii) in the case of every local authority whose area includes any of the land to which the modification relates, by a copy of so much of the order as confirmed as relates to land in the area of the authority;
(iii) in the case of such bodies as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate, by a copy of the order as confirmed.'.

Government amendment No. 303.

Amendment No. 249, in schedule 15, page 103, line 41, leave out first 'and' and insert—
'(v) any person who has signified by prepayment to the authority of such reasonable charge as the authority may determine that he wishes to receive a copy of the notice, or, where the authority is a county council, such notices as relate to a particular district within the area of the authority; and '.

Government amendments Nos. 304 and 305.

Amendment No. 250, in page 104, line 24 at end insert—

'(7) A notice required to be served under sub-paragraph 1(2)(b) above, other than a notice required to be served by sub-paragraph 1(2)(b)(v), shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.'.

Government amendment No. 306.

Amendment No. 251, in page 105, line 29, leave out '(iv)' and insert '(v)'.

Amendment No. 252, in page 105, line 29 after 'shall', insert
'if the order has been modified'.

Government amendment No. 307.

Amendment No. 253, in page 106, line 31, leave out 'and' and insert—
'(vi) any person who has signified by prepayment to the authority of such reasonable charge as the authority may determine that he wishes to receive a copy of the notice, or, where the authority is a county council, such notices as relate to a particular district within the area of the authority; and'.

Government amendments Nos. 308 to 312.

Amendment No. 254, in page 107, line 9, at end insert—
'(3E) A notice required to be served under sub-paragraph 1(3)(b) above, other than one required to be served by sub-paragraph 1(3)(b)(iv), shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.'.

Government amendment No. 314.

Amendment No. 255, in page 108, line 9, leave out '(iii)' and insert '(iv)'.

Amendment No. 256, in page 108, line 10, after 'shall', insert
'if the order has been modified'

Mr. Bennett: New clause 28 is a paving clause for a whole series of amendments, including Government amendments, many of which we very much welcome.
Many people have paid tribute to the work of the Spicer committee and the hon. Member who chaired it. Most of the amendments in this group come from the work of the committee, which put forward agreed procedures. In one or two places the Government have now used their own drafting.
The point of tabling new clause 28 was not to get all the bodies listed in it on to the face of the Bill, because although they are all excellent they vary from time to time. I seek an undertaking from the Minister that all the bodies will be entitled to receive the standing orders that are drawn up—to ensure that everyone who is concerned about footpath proposals can get the relevant information.
I do not want to press new clause 28, therefore, but I press the Minister firmly to give an undertaking that all the organisations that I have mentioned, and any others that may have been missed out, will get all the necessary information. I welcome the agreed amendments and express the hope that in practice they will work satisfactorily.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I warmly welcome the Government amendments. It clearly was right that the so-called Spicer committee's recommendations formed a package which should have been implemented. The original suggestion was that the taxpayer should be saved up to £500,000 by the abolition of the need to notify in the London Gazette, and the quid pro quo was always that individuals should receive, on a prepayment, standing order basis, notices of the order changes, and that certain prescribed bodies should receive the orders.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has a point in new clause 28 in seeking some indication which those prescribed bodies are. There is no question in my mind but that it is right that the Government should have made such a move. I do not want to get into a quarrel with the hon. Member, but the Government's action slightly belies something he said about an hour ago—that there has been no compromise by the Government towards the interests in which he is particularly interested, in this case the walkers. That is an example where there has been a compromise.
My only minor grumble concerns a point that I raised on Second Reading on 27 April. I do not go so far as one of my hon. Friends who said that the taxpayer could have been saved £20, which is the return fare from Evesham to Paddington, if the Government had let us know in advance that they were to move these amendments. I do not press that point because I feel strongly about other later amendments, and I do not want to upset the Government. I certainly will not wish to move amendments Nos. 246 and 248 which stand in my name and the names of other hon. Members.

Mr. Monro: I think that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) will realise that the large number of Government amendments which I shall move formally at the appropriate moment cover the issues we discussed in Committee about giving adequate publicity. The amendments we have tabled overtake the hon. Gentleman's new clause 28 in that all the organisations mentioned will, under the procedure in the Government amendments, have ample opportunity to receive the information.
The Government amendments implement the recommendations of the Spicer committee, and even in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) I commend the great work that the committee has done. The copies of the orders as may be confirmed will be sent to landowners, other local authorities, national path users' organisations prescribed by the Secretary of State, and such local organisations representing path users as seem appropriate to local authorities.
In addition, it should be possible for individual members of the public, on payment of a reasonable charge, to arrange with order-making authorities to receive personal notification of the orders as they are made. I shall be astonished if anyone interested in this issue is not able to receive all the information that he requires. I believe that this long series of amendments covers all the issues.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister has agreed that he will prescribe these national organisations. Is it his intention to prescribe any local ones in the regulations?

Mr. Monro: I should like to be certain before I give the hon. Member a reply to that point. Obviously the national organisations would get the information, and I would be surprised if the local organisations representing the path users and so on could not come to an arrangement with the local authority to receive the same information. I shall consult and take steps to ensure that there is the maximum possible publicity on this issue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed with the steps that we take.

Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for the undertakings that he has given. I welcome the fact that he has given a clear indication that all the bodies we have listed in new clause 28 will be able to benefit from the procedures.Everyone will welcome the new procedures, and, although this is a fairly limited area, I hope that it will work well.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause and hope that in due course we can vote on to the face of the Bill the amendments tabled by the Government.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48

DUTY TO KEEP DEFINITIVE MAP AND STATEMENT UNDER CONTINUOUS REVIEW

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 44, line 36, leave out 'showing' and insert
'which (when considered with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Schedule 13

APPLICATIONS FOR CERTAIN ORDERS UNDER PART III

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 295, in page 97, line 3, at end insert—
'(c) a statement giving the reasons why the applicant or his predecessor in title did not produce at the time required for the lodging of objections under the provisions of the 1949 Act and the 1968 Act relating to the preparation and revision of the definitive map and statement, or under Part III hereof, as the case may be, the evidence which the applicant wishes to adduce in support of the application which will have the effect of deleting from the map and statement a way shown therein, or of showing a byway open to all traffic so shown as a bridleway or a footpath, or of showing a bridleway or a road used as a public path as a footpath.'.
This is a fairly important amendment for ramblers. The problem concerns the way in which information is brought forward to suggest that a footpath is wrongly designated. The question relates to how far people should be able to go back and bring forward evidence. We are suggesting that there should be a severe limitation on the way in which people can go back into the past to bring forward information to try to show that a footpath should not be designated.
The problem is that often the evidence that could have been used to refute other evidence brought forward has disappeared. If, for instance, someone says that no one has used a footpath for a certain period, it is important that such evidence should be brought forward at the relevant time and not years later, when it is difficult to challenge such a statement.
This is a question of natural justice. If, when an order is first proposed to place a footpath on the definitive map, there are objections to it, that is perfectly valid. However, it would be quite wrong for someone, 15 or 16 years later, to ask for the path to be taken off the map and to ask for certain evidence to be taken into account which was available at the time when the proposal was first made but which was not put forward. It may well be that by that time the ability to refute such evidence is no longer available. It is only fair that if people seek to bring forward evidence at a later stage it should be new evidence and not evidence that was available at the time the order was made.
This is an important matter of natural justice to those in favour of the footpaths. I hope that at long last the


Minister will accept one amendment which does not have the full approval of every other body but simply meets the requests of the ramblers.

Mr. Monro: Again, I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he must not forget that I have just accepted a large number of amendments. The amendment returns to the principle of imposing additional obligations upon landowners whenever they wish to secure the downgrading or deletion of rights of way shown on definitive maps and statements.
The amendment itself serves no useful purpose, apart from making things particularly difficult for landowners. They would be obliged to provide surveying authorities with a statement of reasons why the evidence now adduced to support their application for a definitive map order was not produced when the way was first proposed for inclusion in the definitive map and statement. The reasons need not necessarily be relevant, however, as there would be no obligation on surveying authorities to have regard to whether the reasons given were acceptable before proceeding with the consideration of the application.
I cannot accept that there is any justification for treating landowners differently from applicants for other definitive map orders. It is important that we should not make different rules for different people.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment because I do not think that it would help the situation that he is keen to assist. I have given the matter careful thought, but I must ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: Again, the Minister's answer is such that we must register our objection to it. In saying that he would have to reject the amendment, he made the extraordinary statement that my hon. Friend should bear in mind that he had just accepted some other amendments on other matters which have nothing to do with this one. That is the most extraordinary proposition that I have heard in the House.

Mr. Monro: The right hon. Gentleman misrepresents what I said. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) invariably introduces his amendments and new clauses as though he had never received any satisfactory reply from the Government. I was merely pointing out that in the last, very long series of amendments he received a very satisfactory reply.

Mr. Howell: That makes confusion worse confounded. I was saying that the Minister's argument amounted to saying that because he had conceded to my hon. Friend on some matters we should not discuss this one on its merits.
Amenity and recreation organisations such as the Ramblers' Association regard this as one of the key issues in this part of the Bill. It is clear that it will now be much easier for paths on maps to be downgraded or deleted altogether. That is a serious erosion of public rights and will undermine vet again the confidence in our procedures which ought to exist among those who wish to have access to the countryside.
I certainly recommend that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and other hon. Friends who are still here should register, in however small a number, as a matter of principle our determination to pursue this matter now and to return to it again, as I am sure that we shall have to, in the very near future in order

to protect the rights of access to the countryside and the right of people to insist upon their objections being taken seriously.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister seems to be going from one disappointment to another. He suggests that he has made concessions. He has said that he will put the recommendations of the Spicer committee into the Bill. That is useful, but that committee was designed to achieve agreement among the ramblers, the farmers, the country landowners and other such groups. That is where agreement can be reached by everyone.
We have been asking the Government to put something in the Bill that is in favour of the ramblers which may not be particularly favourable to some of the other groups, but the Minister has shown no willingness at all to meet the legitimate claims of the walkers.
The Minister is saying that, whenever a landowner wants to remove a footpath, he can dredge up information from the past and present it without giving someone the opportunity to challenge it. It could well be that the witnesses who would have come forward had the information been presented at the appropriate time have either died or moved away from the area. Once again, the Minister is loading the Bill in favour of those who want to close footpaths.
Many people enjoy the amenity of footpaths, and the Minister ought to preserve their interest as much as the interest of those who want to see footpaths closed. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will vote in favour of the amendment and that in due course the Government will realise the legitimate arguments in favour of the ramblers.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 106.

Division No. 298]
[11.46 pm


AYES


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Soley, Clive


Dixon, Donald
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, Jack
Tinn, James


Graham, Ted
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Whitehead, Phillip


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Winnick, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Leighton, Ronald
Tellers for the Ayes:


McCartney, Hugh
Mr. George Morton and


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Marks, Kenneth





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dover, Denshore


Biggs-Davison, John
Durant, Tony


Blackburn, John
Farr, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bright, Graham
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hawkins, Paul


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)






Hooson, Tom
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rossi, Hugh


Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Major, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Stainton, Keith


Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mellor, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Thompson, Donald


Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Monro, Hector
Waddington, David


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wakeham, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Waller, Gary


Murphy, Christopher
Watson, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wells, Bowen


Needham, Richard
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Normanton, Tom
Wickenden, Keith


Onslow, Cranley
Wilkinson, John


Osborn, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Prior, Rt Hon James



Proctor, K. Harvey
Tellers for the Noes:


Renton, Tim
Mr. Tony Newton and


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 97, line 10, at end insert
'the authority may direct that'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 97, line 24, after 'relates', insert
'and with such bodies as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take amendment No. 89, in schedule 14, page 98, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert —
' 1. Before making an order other than an order arising from an application made under section 48(5), the authority shall consult with—

(a) every local authority whose area includes the land to which the order relates;
(b) every owner and occupier of any of that land; and
(c) such bodies as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate.'.

Mr. Bennett: Hon. Members who have listened carefully to our debates will know that I have been trying to deal with most of the amendments relating to footpaths as quickly as possible—on many occasions not doing justice to the information supplied to me, particularly that made available by the Ramblers' Association. I have also several times said that I would keep my speeches brief if the Minister would say that he was prepared to accept an amendment.
The Deputy Patronage Secretary seems to be dissatisfied with progress. Given the attitude that he has just displayed, perhaps I should start developing to the full some of the briefs supplied to me. That is my immediate reaction to someone trying to bully and intimidate hon. Members, but the adoption of that course would be unfair

to other hon. Members, most of whom are reasonable and appreciate how we have tried to get through a long and difficult Bill in reasonable time.
Therefore, I shall continue to try to deal with amendments briefly and I will not take it out on the House because one hon. Member wants to apply pressure to curtail the debate and prevent the legitimate views of ramblers from being raised.
I have already pressed the Minister to be fair and even-handed to the interests of walkers. Amendments Nos. 79 and 89 provide that opportunity. The Bill is weighted in favour of those who wish to reduce the number of footpaths.
12 midnight
The two amendments are designed to introduce fairness to procedures that apply before an order is made under schedule 14 to modify the definitive map. Schedule 13 requires anyone applying for such an order to be made to serve notice of the application on every owner and occupier concerned. This requirement will fall more heavily on the individual organisation seeking to show that public rights of way exist over a route not currently shown on the definitive map.
In the reverse situation, when an owner or an occupier wishes to have a route taken off, there is not the same duty to supply information to all those who might be concerned. If the Government wish to be even-handed, they should be prepared to accept that, where people want a footpath added, they have a duty to notify everyone of their application and that, where people want a footpath taken off, there should also be a duty to notify those interested, so enabling objections and representations to be made. That seems a simple procedure.
Unfortunately, as the Bill is drafted, there is an onus on those who want a footpath designated to take the trouble to provide information while owners and occupiers of land are allowed a much simpler procedure for taking away the order. I hope that the Minister will accept the two amendments and so enable the House to make progress.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I appreciate the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that he has significant support for his views. A similar amendment to amendment No. 89 was tabled on behalf of the National Farmers' Union in Committee in the other place. In many instances, the views of the various interests about whether an alleged path or way exists, where it runs and what status it commands are likely to be known already to surveying authorities as a result of previous objections, representations or consultations with owners and path users' interests.
I am not opposed to authorities engaging in consultations. I do not believe, however, that it should be mandatory for an authority to consult in every instance. This should be left to the discretion of authorities in the light of the information already available to them to decide when and with whom such consultations should take place. In this way, I am sure we shall achieve better value for the expenditure incurred and avoid any unnecessary delays in the determination of applications and the making of orders. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 14

PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN ORDERS UNDER PART III

Amendments made: No. 298 in page 98, line 43, leave out 'and' and insert—
'( ) every person on whom notice is required to be served in pursuance of sub-paragraph (2A); and'.
No. 299, in page 99, line 1, leave out
'bodies as may be prescribed'
and insert—
'persons as may be prescribed in relation to the area in which that land is situated'
No. 300, in page 99, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the authority may consider appropriate, require an authority to give him notice of all such orders as are made by the authority during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this sub-paragraph "specified" means specified in the requirement.'.
No. 301, in page 99, leave out line 21 and insert
'(5) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (2)(b) on the owner or occupier of any land, or on a local authority, shall be accompanied by a copy of so much of the order as relates to that land or, as the case may be, the area of that authority; and a notice required to be served by that sub-paragraph on such other persons as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.
(5A) A notice required to be displayed by sub-paragraph (2) (c).'.—[Mr. Brcoke.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 266, in page 99, line 27, after 'objections', insert—
'or, if any objections or representations are made with respect to the order, the date of withdrawal of those objections or of the decision of the Secretary of State whether or not to confirm the order'.
Paragraph 3(6) of schedule 14 gives a useful power to members of the public to find out what evidence lies behind an authority's decision to make an order modifying a definitive map. However, the Ramblers' Association believes that an amendment is needed to safeguard the interests of any objector trying to prepare a case for presentation at an inquiry or hearing.
The reason for the amendment is that paragraph 3(6) applies only in the period between the publication of the notice of the making of an order and the closing date for objections. It does not apply to any subsequent period up to an inquiry or hearing or while written representations are being made.
The ramblers are concerned lest it means that an objector will be denied access to documents which will enable him to prepare information for the inquiry or hearing. The amendment extends the period to either the date on which the objections are withdrawn or the date when the Secretary of State takes a decision.
It seems to be a simple matter of natural justice that anyone trying to object to an order should have all the information that he needs to help him prepare the case. Although we have had very little from the Government so far, I hope that they will at least agree with this proposition.

Mr. Monro: I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman should move this amendment. As he knows, there is a statutory period when the information is available, and, of course, the authorities would have to disclose any information if a public inquiry was held. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can argue that the

information is not available to anyone who wishes to have it during the period for objection or subsequently at a public inquiry.
Paragraph 6 of the schedule fulfils the duty very adequately. There is no question of anyone not having the information. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to have additional legislation to provide for the information outwith the period during which it is legally bound to be made available, and subsequently, of course, it would be available to the inquiry.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: But if someone puts in an objection in the last day or two of the period for objections, as matters stand at the moment other people have no right to see that information, unless, of course, there is a public inquiry, when they can ask to see the information. However, if the case is to be made by written representation, as the legislation is drafted the only time that the person has a legal right to see the information is before the end of the period for objections.

Mr. Monro: I see the point about a very late objection being put in and that it might cause some inconvenience. Without entering into any commitment to table an amendment in the other place, I shall consider the matter again carefully. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, and I see his point, although I believe that the position NS covered by paragraph 6. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of these matters, and certainly I am prepared to look at this one again, but it must be without commitment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 86 in page 100, line 13, after 'Where', insert 'at any time'.

No. 87, in page 100, line 15, leave out from 'order' to end of line 16 and insert—
'the authority may, by notice given to the Secretary of State, elect that, for the purposes of the following provisions of this Schedule, the order shall have effect as two separate orders'.

No, 88, in page 100, line 19, at end insert—
'(2) Any reference in sub-paragraph (1) to an order includes a reference to any part of an order which, by virtue of one or more previous elections under that sub-paragraph, has effect as a separate order.'.

No. 302, in page 100, line 32, at end insert—
'(2A) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (2)(b) on the owner or occupier of any land, or on a local authority, shall be accompanied by a copy of so much of the order as confirmed as relates to that land or, as the case may be, the area of that authority; and, in the case of an order which has been confirmed with modifications, a notice required to be served by that sub-paragraph on such other persons as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate shall be accompanied by a copy of the order as confirmed.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Amendment proposed: No. 90, in page 103, line 13, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations made under sub-paragraph (1) above shall include provisions for a copy of each confirmed order to be sent to the Ordnance Survey.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Question put, that the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 99.

Division No. 299]
[12.09 am


AYES


Graham, Ted
Winnick, David


Hardy, Peter



Leighton, Ronald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Whitehead, Phillip







NOES


Alexander, Richard
Monro, Hector


Ancram, Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Murphy, Christopher


Berry, Hon Anthony
Neale, Gerrard


Blackburn, John
Needham, Richard


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Neubert, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Newton, Tony


Bright, Graham
Normanton, Tom


Brinton, Tim
Onslow, Cranley


Brooke, Hon Peter
Osborn, John


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Buck, Antony
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Renton, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Colvin, Michael
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Cope, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dorrell, Stephen
Rossi, Hugh


Dover, Denshore
Scott, Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Farr, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Silvester, Fred


Goodlad, Alastair
Sims, Roger


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stainton, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Stevens, Martin


Hawkins, Paul
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hawksley, Warren
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Heddle, John
Tebbit, Norman


Hill, James
Thompson, Donald


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hooson, Tom
Waddington, David


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Wakeham, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Waller, Gary


Kershaw, Anthony
Watson, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Wells, Bowen


Le Marchant, Spencer
Wheeler, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Whitney, Raymond


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wickenden, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


MacGregor, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Major, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Wolfson, Mark


Marlow, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Mellor, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mr. Carol Mather and


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Moate, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 50

No FURTHER SURVEYS OR REVIEWS UNDER THE 1949 ACT

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 46, line 41, at end insert—
'(lA) Where such a survey or review so begun is abandoned, the Secretary of State shall give such notice of the abandonment as appears to him requisite.'.

No. 93, in page 47, line 10, after 'any', insert—
'determination or decision of the authority under section 29(3) or (4) of the 1949 Act in respect of which either there is no right of appeal or no notice of appeal has been duly served;
(aa) to give effect to any'.

No. 94, in page 47, line 11, leave out 'the 1949', and insert 'that'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 51

EFFECT OF DEFINITIVE MAP AND SETTLEMENT

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 49, line 4, leave out
'a definitive map or statement or part thereof'
and insert—
'or of any part of a definitive map or statement' —[Mr. Heseltine.]

Clause 52

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO DEFINITIVE MAPS AND STATEMENTS

Amendments made: No. 98, in page 49, line 11, at beginning insert—
' An order under the foregoing provisions of this Part shall be in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and shall contain a map, on such scale as may be so prescribed, showing the modifications to which the order relates
(1A)'.

No. 99, in page 49, leave out lines 15 to 17.

No. 100, in page 50, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert—
'(6) Every surveying authority shall take such steps as they consider expedient for bringing to the attention of the public the provisions of this Part including, in particular, section 48(5) and subsection (4).
(7) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Michael Roberts.]

Clause 54

PROHIBITION ON KEEPING BULLS ON LAND CROSSED BY PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 51, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
'(b) is of a recognised beef breed and is listed in Schedule (Recognised beef breeds for the purpose of section 54) and is at large in any field or enclosure in which cows or heifers are also at large.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 104, in page 51, line 3, at end insert—
'(2A)(a) The Secretary of State may by order add any breed to or remove any breed from Schedule (Recognised beef breeds for the purpose of section 54);
(b) The power to make orders under this subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.'.
No. 97, in page 51, line 6, at end insert—
'(4) In this section "recognised dairy breed" means one of the following breeds, namely, Ayrshire, British Friesian, British Holstein, Dairy Shorthorn, Guernsey, Jersey and Kerry.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order add any breed to, or remove any breed from, subsection (4); and an order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

No. 76, new schedule—

RECOGNISED BEEF BREEDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54

Mr. Bennett: There are many parts of the Bill that disappoint my right hon. and hon. Friends. Walkers and ramblers are left feeling especially disappointed. The provisions about bulls and footpaths are considered by


many to be particularly disappointing. In England and Wales, almost three-quarters of the country, it is an offence to have a bull in a field through which there runs a footpath. Farmers suffer no hardship as a result. No one has been able to present evidence that farmers find that restriction unsatisfactory. In the remaining quarter of the country there are byelaws that vary from area to area. Some byelaws contain no restrictions and others make it possible to have a bull in a field through which there runs a footpath as long as there are heifers or other cattle in the field. There were strong arguments that there should be a national provision rather than local provisions.
When the previous Labour Government were in office, a compromise was found which would have been reasonably effective. Unfortunately the change of Government caused the compromise to fall through.
We have clear evidence from the Health and Safety Executive that bulls are dangerous animals. Many farm workers are insured by bulls each year and occasionally there are fatalities. There is clear acceptance that bulls are dangerous. They are dangerous when they are being handled by experienced farm workers. They are extremely dangerous for the general public. Footpaths are rights of way for not only the able-bodied but for young people, for the elderly and for the handicapped. If bulls are dangerous for farm workers, clearly they are dangerous for those who find it difficult to walk or for young people. We should accept that there is a major problem with bulls if footpaths run through the fields which they occupy.
It is argued by those who want to make it possible for the bull to be in fields in which there are footpaths that otherwise farmers would be caused hardship. No one has so far been able to present evidence of any farm where more than about one-third of the fields have a footpath running through them. Therefore, usually the farmer has two-thirds—in many farms there is more—of his fields where it is easy for him to put a bull as there is no public footpath. However there, there is still that one-third. If one takes into account the stock which is normally carried on a farm, one sees that there is no need for the farmer ever to put his bull into one of those fields.
Many proposals were rehearsed in Committee. Some of those, and some of those on the Amendment Paper which have not been selected, are far more satisfactory solutions to the problem than the ones which have been selected. The ones which have been selected come down to the question of which bulls should be permitted. It has been argued by Opposition Members that there should be no bulls. If they are to be allowed, they should be only from recognised beef herds.
The Government have approached that by putting down a list of dairy herds which will be prohibited, but it does not deal with the matter in the way we proposed. I realise that the amendment is unsatisfactory and that most of my hon. Friends would have wanted to support a total ban on bulls in fields with footpaths. As we cannot have that, at least the amendments in our name are something towards a compromise.
I am certain that most ramblers in future will take the advice of the Minister, which is that on every occasion when they have any doubt about the safety of a bull in a field, they should report that bull to the Health and Safety Executive. The Minister made it clear that if a farmer persisted in having a bull in a field where there was a footpath, having had a complaint made against it, he was clearly liable to be in breach of the legislation.
In Committee the Minister's defence for not going further was that there was already health and safety legislation which made it an offence for a farmer to have in a field with a footpath any bull which he had any reason to believe was not safe. It is often said that the Health and Safety Executive suggests that no bull is safe, and if people make complaints it is clear that the bull is deemed to be dangerous and the farmer should have no right to put it in the field. It would have been better for us to legislate in the House and to make it clear that a farmer should not have a bull in a field with a footpath. If we do not do that, we shall have to take the Minister's advice, which is to use the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that bulls are not on footpaths.
I ask Conservative Members the following. If their child goes to a local village school, which involves his going over a footpath, would they want there to be a bull in the field through which the child has to walk to school? I suggest that they would not want that. The truth is that most farmers would not place their bulls on a footpath that leads to a village school. However, sadly, there are some who do not have regard for kindness to their neighbours, and particularly those who want to use their footpaths.
Unless Conservative Members can honestly say that they believe it to be safe for a bull to be in a field with a footpath, through which one of their children was to pass, they should be pressing firmly for stronger legislation than we have in the Bill at the moment.

Mr. Denis Howell: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). I recognise the origin of the Government's approach as I was urged by my officials in 1978 to take action when we were preparing a Bill.
I did a little research and discovered that for many years every Government who had attempted to legislate on bulls had come to grief. Therefore, I took the view, which I think was pragmatic and which, I hope, would have commended itself to the present Government, that I would not put such a clause into the 1978 Bill, for which I was responsible, unless at least the National Farmers' Union and the Ramblers Association could be brought together to produce and agree on a satisfactory scheme which, whilst looking after the farming interest, would protect the public.
To everybody's astonishment, the two bodies reached agreement. I said that if they reached agreement I would incorporate it in the 1978 Bill. It was, therefore, our intention to legislate. The Bill fell because of the general election of 1979, and I do not understand why the Government have not re-enacted the agreement between the Ramblers' Association and the NFU in this legislation. We were told in Committee that the reason was that, now that there has been a change of Government, the local authorities have withdrawn their support. I understand that both the NFU and the Ramblers' Association would have been happy to proceed with the agreement.
12.30 am
Members of the public are unable to distinguish between one bull and another. When they come across a. bull in a field they may be concerned or may panic. A Member of the Upper House told me the other day that he had come across a teacher with a party of handicapped children, and a bull came from under the bridge and


tremendous panic ensued. He and others had great difficulty in protecting the children. The bull showed every sign of being aggressive.
The public who have access to the countryside are entitled to protection. We should have sensible arrangements to protect the public, to give them information and to ensure that on public rights of way the agreement between the NFU and the Ramblers' Association to provide alternative routes when bulls have to be in fields is put into effect.
I am disappointed that the sensible agreement has not been re-enacted. The problem will not go away. The Ramblers' Association and others interested in public access will return to it through petitions and Adjournment debates. This is not a satisfactory solution. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will agree in another place that if the NFU and the Ramblers' Assocation maintain the agreement it would be sensible to deal with the matter and to maintain public confidence on this important question.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: It would be valuable for the Minister to reflect, even at this late hour, not only on the correspondence that many of us have had on the subject but on the feeling of those of us who live in the country and who know the difference between the conventional wisdom in the countryside about the danger potentially posed by bulls grazing near footpaths and what has finally appeared in the Bill.
Many of us feel that the Minister could have gone much further. He may insist on having a clause in the Bill, such as clause 54, which includes certain breeds of bull that can be grazed, but the exclusion should go far wider than merely a certain number of dairy breeds. Anyone in the country knows that a Jersey bull in a field is a very mean animal which should be steered well clear of. People in the country also know that a Hereford running with cows is passive and that it can be walked by without much danger. They probably know, too, however, that there can be considerable danger from other breeds which are not specified in the Bill. As one who was put in danger of his life on one occasion by a Red Poll bull—I was rescued by the farmer, whom I then left cornered while I made off—I know that there are breeds of that kind, dual purpose breeds, which should have been included.
Amendment No. 103 is not what most of us, particularly those who have had connections with the Ramblers' Association, wanted. At least it will widen the exclusivity of the clause, however. Will the Minister say why that cannot be done with breeds such as the Red Poll and the Dexter, and why the Continental breeds, which are now being used more intensively for cross-breeding and so on, are excluded when so little is known about their behaviour in many cases—[Interruption.]
I heard several Conservative Members below the Gangway, who are now interrupting again as they wait to vote, saying earlier that public footpaths are not provided for the disabled. They are not specifically provided for the disabled. They are provided for the community as a whole. That includes young children, the disabled and people who are not fleet of foot. They have every right to use these footpaths. A panic among a number of schoolchildren, for example, as they cross a field containing a bull of

suspicious nature may aggravate the bull, making him excited and causing him to get among the children so that some danger could ensue.
For all these reasons, the Minister should think again about the clause and widen the list of exclusions of breed in the way suggested by amendment No. 103.

Mr. Cryer: When the Bill was first published I think that most hon. Members were overwhelmed with correspondence from the ramblers and footpaths associations expressing great apprehension at the right of farmers to put bulls into fields with footpaths running through them. The reason is that ramblers and others who appreciate the countryside and make great use of it by walking in it have long and bitter experience of the behaviour of some, though not all, farmers. Many farmers are concerned that there should be sensible joint appreciation of the countryside. Some farmers, however, have displayed a bitterness and hostility towards ramblers. That has caused the ramblers to become deeply suspicious of any rights being opened to abuse by certain farmers.
When they first saw the Bill and read the proposals, therefore, this subject caused ramblers the greatest degree of apprehension. I supported another amendment tabled by my hon. Friend—a much stronger amendment which has not been selected for debate. I regard the amendments now before us as the least that we can accept. I should prefer complete exclusion of bulls from these fields. We are attempting to gain greater safety, to limit the categories of bull allowed into these fields to those that the Minister can confidently recommend as safe.
On my way to the House this morning I saw in my constituency a group of elderly ramblers who were getting together before starting out to enjoy the countryside. They were sober, sensible people who were deeply appreciative of the facilities that are available. They are the people who have the right to walk on footpaths. They, as well as the able-bodied and the fleet-footed, have to be borne in mind when legislation is framed. There is no distinction between categories of people. We must legislate for the lame, the young and the crippled, who may want to go across fields as of right—the disabled as well as those who can spot danger at a distance and make off.
Therefore, the Bill should provide safeguards. Organisations such as the Ramblers' Association have a long history of concern for preserving our countryside heritage and have behaved with great probity in seeking to ensure that there is sensible access and responsible behaviour by the users. It behoves the Government to listen to their representations and take action on them.
The countryside is available for the use of us all. It is not the prerogative of any one section of the community. The matter has given rise to the greatest apprehension among those who seek nothing more than good access and facilities for their taking of pleasure in our universally available countryside.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has done a signal service tonight in putting forward a number of amendments. His pains have not been met with many thanks, at least from the Deputy Chief Whip, but he has done a signal service in tabling the amendments so that we can debate the matter, which is a cause of great concern to many thousands of people.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) misses one of the points, which is that the reason


for the debate is that the Government have tabled an amendment to meet an Opposition request in Committee. I refer to amendment No. 97, naming the dairy breeds.
In lengthy debate in another place, and without question the longest debate in Committee, we dealt in the greatest detail with all the reasons for the requirement of the clause. 13o not propose to rehearse the agricultural reasons why bulls must meet cows and heifers from time to time. There is a lack of uniformity in regulations about bulls on footpaths. I presume that the hon. Gentleman realises that there are some areas where there are no regulations whatsoever about bulls.

Mr. Cryer: Yes.

Mr. Monro: So we are making a substantial step forward in any event. For the average rambler moving about the country, there is no knowing what the regulations are, because they vary from region to region and county to county. It is not possible to know what the local regulation is if one is walking from, say, Kent into East Sussex and then into West Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The position is different all the way, and one does not know. Therefore, it is important that we have uniformity.
I wish that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) had read the Hansard report of our debate in Committee when he was away on important business elsewhere. It was clear in 1979 when we were drafting the Bill that there was no hope of the committee concerned coming to an agreement, and I gave the reasons in Committee. We had to come to a decision for uniformity.
The position in Scotland has been adequate since 1967, as far as I am aware. I accept that the footpath situation there might not be quite the same as it is in England, but it is not so dramatically different that there is not a definite relationship. Tate Government feel that the regulation brought in by the Labour Government in 1967, allowing beef bulls running with cows and heifers in fields where there are footpaths, is the right way forward.
12.45 am
In Committee we went into the greatest detail about the possibility of accidents and the great care that everyone must take. It has to be remembered that the accidents that have taken place have, by and large, involved farm workers in steadings where the chief danger is with dairy bulls serving cows. I have had hundreds of letters on the subject. Another incident took place in the North-East where there was a herd of Friesian bulls that unfortunately savaged someone who was in a field that had no footpath. That had nothing to do with what the Government are putting forward.
We say that the only bulls that should be permitted in fields where there is a footpath are beef bulls over 10 months, running with cows or heifers. I said in Committee that I would put dairy bulls into the Bill. That is why amendment No. 97 spells out the well-known dairy bulls in this country. If I were to be critical of the Opposition amendment I could say that there are a large number of bulls other than the seven breeds mentioned. Because we want continuity in this matter, we have followed the Scottish pattern.
There is also guidance from the Health and Safety Executive and the helpful statement from the National Farmers' Union. We believe that our way is the right

method and we say that there is relatively little danger from a beef bull running with cows and heifers. In time I believe that the Government's view will be proved to be right and to be to the benefit of all.

Mr. Tony Marlow: In view of the increase in the number of exotic bulls now being imported, can my hon. Friend say whether, if the female of the species gives much more milk than other animals, there is any likelihood that the bull of that species will be wilder than the bull of a species of which the female does not give so much milk? I have had it put to me that Libertine bulls that have come into this country recently and that are supposed to be beef bulls are as frisky as many dairy bulls. Is my hon. Friend saying that in future exotic breeds imported because they are beef bulls in the country of origin will not be as frisky when they come here?

Mr. Monro: It is clear that in terms of the clause we must stick to the recognised dairy breeds that are to be kept in fields where there are footpaths. My hon. Friend mentions exotic breeds. That is why the Opposition amendment bringing in seven beef bulls but leaving out the Continental beef bulls that are so prevalent now—Limousin, Charollais and the rest—would present so many problems for the agriculture industry.
I think that my hon. Friend is wrong to imagine that some Continental beef bulls might be as temperamental as dairy bulls. That is certainly not the experience conveyed to me by the National Farmers' Union, the Health and Safety Executive or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I therefore believe that the plans that we have put forward are as satisfactory as we can achieve.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 95.

Division No. 300]
[12.50 am


AYES


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Spearing, Nigel


Cryer, Bob
Winnick, David


Dalyell, Tarn



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mr. Philip Whitehead and


McCartney, Hugh
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Murphy, Christopher





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Ancram, Michael
Hastings, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hawkins, Paul


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawksley, Warren


Blackburn, John
Heddle, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hill, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bright, Graham
Hooson, Tom


Brinton, Tim
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jopllng, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Micbael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Ksrshaw, Anthony


Buck, Antony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Le Merchant, Spencer


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lyell, Nicholas


Colvin, Michael
MacGregor, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Major, John


Dover, Denshore
Marland, Paul


Farr, John
Mather, Carol


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Mellor, David


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mayer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Moate, Roger






Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stevens, Martin


Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Newton, Tony
Thompson, Donald


Normanton, Tom
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


Osborn, John
Wakeham, John


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Watson, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wells, Bowen


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wheeler, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitney, Raymond


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wickenden, Keith


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wilkinson, John


Rossi, Hugh
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Silvester, Fred
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger



Speed, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Speller, Tony
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
and Mr. John Cope


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 97, in page 51, line 6, at end insert—
'(4) In this section "recognised dairy breed" means one of the following breeds, namely, Ayrshire, British Friesian, British Holstein, Dairy Shorthorn, Guernsey, Jersey and Kerry.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order add any breed to, or remove any breed from, subsection (4); and an order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.— [Mr. Monro.]

Clause 56

PLOUGHING OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

Amendment proposed: No. 281, in page 51, line 23, leave out '3' and insert '2'.—[Mr. Monro.]

1 am

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 264, in page 51, line 24, leave out second 'or'.
No. 263, in page 51, leave out lines 25 and 26.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has added his name to amendment No. 281, but regret that he did not add his name to the other amendments that I have tabled.
The amendments deal with redefining footpaths after the land has been ploughed,. The Opposition's view is that it is reasonable that the path should be clearly defined again as soon as possible—in fact, in a shorter period than the two weeks proposed.
To balance that, our view is that the farmer should not have to try to reinstate the footpath, because we recognise that it would be virtually impossible for a farmer to reinstate a footpath. If a footpath went across a grass field that had been ploughed the farmer could not reinstate the grass in two weeks. Our view is that the farmer should define the line of the footpath as soon as possible.
Therefore, we have tabled a package of amendments which provide for the farmer to define the route as quickly as possible, but, at the same time, we do not insist on the reinstatement. I had hoped that the Minister would consider that as a package. He still has time to consider

it in the House of Lords, as this is different from the form in which the Bill left the Lords. It is important for ramblers that the path should be defined either by signposts or by the line of a tractor wheel so that they know which way to go. That is more important than to have the path theoretically reinstated when most people realise that in a fortnight or a month it would be difficult to restore the footpath.

Mr. Monro: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the amendment to change the period of three weeks to two as I promised in Committee. That seems to be generally acceptable.
We discussed the restoration of footpaths in great detail in Committee and decided that this was about the best compromise, bearing in mind all the problems on a short winter day when one is ploughing and the additional problems of reinstating a path, possibly at 4 o'clock, in the dark, and starting again at 8 o'clock in the morning. I think that we have proposed a reasonable compromise and that our amendment to reduce the time period from three weeks to two weeks should be acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 15

ORDERS CREATING, EXTINGUISHING OR DIVERTING FOOTPATHS OR BRIDLEWAYS

Amendments made: No. 303, in page 103, line 40, leave out
'such other bodies as may be prescribed'
and insert—
'every person on whom notice is required to be served in pursuance of sub-paragraph (2A) of this paragraph; and
(v) such other persons as may be prescribed in relation to the area in which that land is situated.'.

No. 304, in page 104, line 10, at end insert —
'(2A) After that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
(2A) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the authority may consider appropriate, require an authority to give him notice of all such orders under section 210 or 214(1)(b) of this Act as are made by the authority during a specified period are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this sub-paragraph 'specified' means specified in the requirement."'.

No. 115, in page 104, line 13, at end insert —
'or by the council of a parish or community or the parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council'.

No. 305, in page 104, line 20, leave out 'The' and Insert—
'A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (2)(b)(i), (ii), (iii) or (v) of this paragraph shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.
(7) A'.

No. 306, in page 105, line 27, leave out from 'paragraph' to 'shall' in line 29 and insert—
'on—

(a) a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(2)(b)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this Schedule;
(b) in the case of an order which has been confirmed with modifications, a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(2)(b)(v) of this Schedule,'.

No. 112, in page 105, line 36, at end insert—
'3A. After that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph —
7. As soon as may be after an order under section 210 or 214(1)(b) of this Act has come into operation otherwise than

(a) on the date on which it was confirmed by the Secretary of State or confirmed as an unopposed order; or


(b) at the expiration of a specified period beginning with that date,
the authority by whom the order was made shall give notice of its coming into operation by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated.".'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 245, in page 106, line 5, at end insert—
'(3) In subsection (6) of that section insert after "any land held with it",—
"(d) the diversion would have on the interests of agriculture.".'.
The amendment is apparently innocent. It will not cost the Government any money and it will not cause great administrative or legislative complications, but farming interests take it seriously and the Spicer committee agreed unanimously that it should be tabled. The committee included a number of diverse elements, and the amendment also has the backing of various eminent members of the Conservative Party.
The Spicer committee proposed a simplification of the grounds on which footpaths could be diverted and the Government accepted most of those proposals. The four grounds on which the committee suggested that footpaths should be diverted took into account the interests of agriculture, the interests of owners or occupiers, the public interest in securing the continuance of a right of way and the effect of the diversion of public enjoyment of the whole path.
The Government accepted three of the conditions but left out the interest of agriculture. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said in Committee:
The third ground was that diversions should have regard to the interests of agriculture. We consider that this is adequately covered in the reference to the interests of the owner, lessee or occupier."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 June 1981; c. 1193.]
Farming interests are certainly not convinced by that. They feel that there is a wider interest than any that may attach to an individual occupier or farmer and that it should be incorporated in the Bill under the broad term "interests of agriculture". They feel that when making representations on appeal they should be able to use arguments that go wider than the narrow, sectional arguments of an individual owner.

Mr. Monro: My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) is the acknowledged expert on footpaths; and this House and another place have benefited enormously from the deliberations and recommendations of his committee.
I noted carefully what my hon. Friend said, particularly about the history of the issue and his recommendation.
I recognise that under the new arrangements authorities may initiate orders themselves on the grounds that the diversion is in the public interest and that such a diversion may affect agricultural land. But in making such an order they must have due regard to the needs of agriculture in accordance with sections 29 and 121(3) of the Highways Act 1980. Landowners will, however, continue to receive personal notification of all orders affecting rights of way on their land, including those which authorities initiate because they believe them to be in the public interest.
If such orders encompass agricultural land and, in the opinion of the landowner, adversely affect the management of his holding, it would be open to him to object to the order on that basis and thus ensure that the agricultural interests are taken into consideration in the decision on the

order. In this connection, the confirming authority must be satisfied that the diversion is expedient on the grounds on which the order is made. In relation to opposed orders, we take this obligation to include consideration of the grounds of the objection.
Among the considerations that authorities are required specifically to take into account in confirming orders under the provision of section 119(6) of the Highways Act is the effect that the right of way created by the order would have on the land it crosses. This embraces the effect, if any, of the path on agriculture and safeguards the interests of the farmer or landowner irrespective of whether agriculture is the reason for the order or the basis of the objection.
I accept the weight of my hon. Friend's argument that when authorities are considering these orders they must take agriculture into account, particularly if there is consideration of any adverse effect to the farming interest. I believe that what I have stated, together with the safeguards of the various sections of the Highways Act, shows that agriculture will be taken care of. In guidance given to authorities following the enactment of the legislation, the Government will bring home to the authorities their responsibility to agriculture along with the other three important points made by my hon. Friend I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will feel that it is unnecessary to press the matter further.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend has referred to section 119 of the Highways Act. I am advised that the amendment was necessary because the Act did not cover agricultural interests. The section covers public enjoyment which therefore did not require to be incorporated in the Bill now being discussed. The point has been made. I had hoped that my hon. Friend might be able to accept the amendment. I do not, however, wish to press the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 116, in page 106, line 2:5, leave out 'council'.

No. 307, in page 106, line 29, leave out

'such other bodies as may be prescribed'

and insert—

'every person on whom notice is required to be served in pursuance of sub-paragraph (3ZA) or (3ZB) below; and
(iv) such other persons as may be prescribed in relation to the area in which that land is situated.'.

No. 308, in page 106, line 43, at end insert—
'(3ZA) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the authority may consider appropriate, require an authority to give him notice of all such public path creation orders, public path extinguishment orders and public diversion orders as are made by the authority during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to lard compromised in a specified area; and in this sub-paragraph "specified" means specified in the requirement.
(3ZB) Any person may, on payment of such reasonable charge as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate, require the Secretary of State to give him notice of all such draft public path creation orders, draft public path extinguishment orders and draft public path diversion orders as are prepared by the Secretary of State during a specified period, are of a specified description and relate to land comprised in a specified area; and in this sub-paragraph "specified" means specified in the requirement.

No. 309, in page 107, line 1, at beginning insert—'

(4) After sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—'.

No. 310, in page 107, line 1, leave out 'sub-paragraph (3A)' and insert 'sub-paragraphs (3A) and (4)'.

No. 311, in page 107, line 4, leave out 'The' and insert:

A notice required to be served by sub-paragraphs (3)(b)(i), (ii) or (iv) above shall be accompanied by a copy of the order.

(4C) A'.

No. 312, in page 107, line 7, leave out 'as made'.

No. 313, in page 107, line 9, after 'buildings', insert 'acquired or'.

No. 118, in page 107, line 9, at end insert:

'or by the council of a parish or community or the parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council'.

No. 314, in page 108, line 8, leave out from 'above' to end of line 9 and insert:
'on—

(a) a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(3)(b)(i) or (ii) above; or
(b) in the case of an order which has been confirmed or made with modifications, a person on whom notice was required to be served by paragraph 1(3)(b)(iv) above,'.

No. 113, in page 108, line 16, at end insert—

'7A. After that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"4A. As soon as may be after an order to which this Schedule applies has come into operation otherwise than—

(a) on the date on which it was confirmed or made by the Secretary of State or confirmed as an unopposed order; or
(b) at the expiration of a specified period beginning with that date,

the authority by whom the order was made or, in the case of an order made by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall give notice of its coming into operation by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated.".'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 58

APPOINTMENT OF WARDENS FOR FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS

Amendment made: No. 119, in page 52, line 21, leave out clause 58—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 61

APPLICATION TO CROWN

Amendment made: No. 226, in page 54, line 1, after '32', insert '(Marine nature reserves)'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 66

MINOR AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 297, in page 55, line 20, at beginning insert—
'Section 4 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935 [power to fence roads subject to restrictions) shall have effect, in relation to any area in the countryside of which walls of a particular construction are a feature, as if references to fences included references to walls of that construction; and in exercising their powers under that section in relation to any such area, a highway authority shall have regard to the desirability of exercising the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this subsection.
(1A) In section 20(2) of the Hill Farming Act 1946 (penalty for contravening regulations with respect to the burning of heather and grass) as originally enacted for the words from "five pounds" onwards there shall be substituted the words "£200".
(1B) In section 27 of that Act (penalty for contravening the provisions of that Act relating to muirburn) for the words from "five pounds" onwards there shall be substituted the words "£200".

(1C).'.

No. 164, in page 55, line 27, after '1961', insert—

'(power to reduce numbers of pigeons and other birds in built-up areas)'.

No. 65, in page 56, line 4, after '1980', insert—
'(dedication of way as highway presumed after public use for 20 years)'.

No. 166, in page 56, line 8, at end insert—
'(8A) Section 80 of that Act (power of highway authority to fence highways) shall have effect in relation to any area in the countryside of which walls of a particular construction are a feature, as if references to fences included references to walls of that construction; and in exercising their powers under that section in relation to any such area, a highway authority shall have regard to the desirability of exercising the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this subsection.'.

No. 318, in page 56, line 12, at end insert—
'(10) In section 4(5) of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (grant or refusal of licence) the entries relating to the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 shall be omitted and there shall be added at the end the following entry—
Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981".'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 68

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 120, in page 56, line 29, leave out
'Subject to subsection (3)'.

No. 291A, in page 56, line 31, leave out '34, 39 and 43' and insert:
'39, 43, 44 and (Duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to areas of special scientific interest) and Schedule 12'.

No. 122, in page 56, line 32, leave out
'Part III, except section 57'

and insert
'sections 54 to 56 and 58 to 60'.

No. 283, in page 56, line 33, leave out '66(1)' and insert '66(1C)'.

No. 319, in page 56, line 33, leave out 'and (3)' and insert '(3) and (10)'.

No. 123, in page 56, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 57.

No. 124, in page 56, line 37, after '(3)' insert
'Sections 48 to 53 shall come into force on the expiration of the period of one year beginning with the passing of this Act, but.'.

No. 125, in page 57, line 3, leave out
'Subject to subsections (2) and (3)'

and insert
'The remaining provisions of '.—[Mr. Brooke.]

No. 296, in page 57, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'do' in line 13 and insert—
'The following provisions of this Act, namely—
sections 37, 38, 40 to 45, (Maps of National Parks showing certain areas of moor or heath) and (Duties of water authorities etc. with regard to nature conservation and the countryside) and Schedule 12; and
Part III'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Schedule 16

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendments made: No. 126, in page 108, column 3, leave out lines 35 and 36.

No. 127, in page 108, leave out lines 37 and 38.

No. 128, in page 109, column 3, leave out lines 7 to 11.

No. 129, in page 109, leave out lines 12 to 22.

No. 131, in page 109, column 3, leave out lines 30 to 32.

No. 132, in page 109, column 3, leave out line 38.

No. 133, in page 109, line 43, column 3, at end insert—

'Sections 27 to 35.




'Section 38'

No. 134, in page 109, line 47, at end insert—

'1963 c. 33
The London Government Act 1963
In section 60, subsections (1) to (4).'

No. 135, in page 110, line 12, column 3, at end insert—

'In Schedule 3, in Part I, the entry relating to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and Parts II, III and IV.'

No. 136, in page 110, line 15 at end insert—

'1971 c. 23
The Courts Act 1971
In Schedule 8, Paragraph 31.




In Schedule 9, in Part II, the entry relating to section 31 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.


1971 c. 78
The Town and Country Planning Act 1971
In Schedule 20, in paragraph 1(2)(a), the words "in the London Gazette and".'

No. 137, in page 110, line 16. column 3, at beginning insert—

'In Schedule 17, paragraphs 22 to 33.'

No. 138, in page 110, line 53, at end insert—

'1980 c.66.
The Highways Act 1980
In section 31(10) the words "or of that subsection" onwards.




Section 340(2)(d).'

No.320, in page 110, line 550, at end insert—

'1981 c. 37.
The Zoo Licensing Act 1981
In section 4(5), the entries relating to the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. '—[Mr. Brooke.]

Title

Amendments made: No. 212, in line 5, after first 'animals' insert

'to amend the law relating to protection of certain mammals'.

No. 213, in line 6, leave out from 'amend' to end of line 7.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent and Prince of Wales's consent signified].

Mr. King: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Perhaps I might take this opportunity at the end of what has been a long consideration of the Bill to put on record my appreciation of the very real support of and the tremendous work done by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). He has nobly carried a huge load and an immense amount of detail, and he has done so with consideration and courtesy at all times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the appreciation shown by right hon. and hon. Members.
I want also to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales for his part, and I am sure that no hon. Member who served on the Standing Committee would forgive me if I failed to mention the part played in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and the part that he has played today on the Treasury Bench. I also express my appreciation to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and his colleagues for the way in which they have dealt with some very complex issues. We have had our disagreements, but we have had some satisfying moments as well.
Although it is not normally done, I hope that I shall be excused if I pay tribute to the work done by the Department's officials. I do not know whether it is generally appreciated, but it has involved the section of the Department that has been dispersed, for better or worse, to Bristol. It has meant, therefore, that a number of officials have been involved in a considerable number of travelling hours, with inconvenience to their private lives, and it is right to put that on the record.
I must also pay tribute, although I do not always do so during my other speeches, to the number of outside bodies which have taken a close interest in the Bill. There has been some very active lobbying.
As the Bill comes to its Third Reading, it is one in which a considerable number of people have been involved—naturalists, ramblers, sportsmen, farmers, different landowners, and all sorts of other interests. All have provisions in the Bill which they can support. No one has got all that he wanted, and it is understandable that the various groups pressing their interests have sought to get more for themselves. But the nature of so many of the issues involved here has meant that it has been necessary to strike a balance between the competing claims——agricultural production and conservation, and the interests of the landowner and the farmer and those who wish to gain access to their land.
I like to feel that we have made a genuine attempt not just as a Government but as Houses of Parliament to strike fair balances in issues which are of great interest to our citizens. When I say that, I make no apology to right hon. and hon. Members, because they know the great interest that the Bill has aroused. Their correspondence has brought that home to them, and it demonstrates the very real interests that so many people have in the issues that we have discussed.
Within the Bill, we have encompassed greater protection for birds, animals and plants. We have outlawed measures of extreme cruelty in the trapping, decoying and other ill treatment of animals and birds.
We have taken steps to deal with the better conservation of the landscape and the better protection of natural habitat. We have sought to introduce more flexible procedures for definitive maps and public rights of way and their revision. We have introduced arrangements which, for the first time, will enable marine nature reserves to be set up in a statutory form. For the first time we have tackled the problems of the sites of special scientific interest, and we have introduced a procedure, first, of proper notification to the owners of their very existence and the actions to be taken to avoid their damage and destruction, and also a reciprocal obligation on such owners to advise the necessary authorities whether any activities or operations are being undertaken which might damage precious natural habitat.
The Bill has been the outcome not of a brief parliamentary scrutiny but of more than two years of consultation, building up to this parliamentary process. It has taken up an enormous amount of time in their Lordships' House and in this House. It has incorporated improvements and advances. Moreover, it has incorporated what we have come to describe in the Bill as Sandford—the improvements in the definition of the Ministry of Agriculture's proper responsibility and concern, not merely in agricultural production, but in conservation and in ensuring that those who show proper concern for conservation get some recompense for production forgone or income lost.
We have achieved a proper understanding of the role of the advisers of ADAS in advising farmers not merely on better ways to increase production but on ways in which they can improve their income while taking into account conservation or rural economic considerations.
Inevitably, the Bill involves certain calls on the resources of the Nature Conservancy Council. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr Dalyell) asked me to say a word about resources. A number of the steps that we have taken in the Bill will add significantly to the statutory responsibilities of the NCC. We shall meet the council shortly to discuss the implications of the Bill for the council and to see how best to take into account its new responsibilities. Clearly, I cannot give any blanket undertaking to the House at this stage, but we are aware of the implications of some of those commitments, and we shall take them into account.
The Bill concerns an issue which the House rarely undertakes, and one which is of great concern to an enormous number of our fellow citizens. The Bill is not one in which we proposed the status quo and were somehow persuaded off the status quo. We proposed a number of changes, and as a result of parliamentary debate some of those changes have been modified, developed and improved in the eyes of many.
I do not wish to take credit or award credit in any particular direction. People may choose to claim credit for themselves as a result of astute parliamentary manoeuvres. I leave hon. Members to believe what they wish. Some day I shall write the true history of the process of the Bill, and it may intrigue a few Labour Members when they hear the whole story.
I am more than happy to commend the Bill to the House. Many of us have learnt a lot during it. I certainly have learnt a lot about a number of matters in which I am interested. Moreover, it has been not at all unhealthy for the workings of Government, because Government Departments have learnt a lot about working together during the necessary process of consultation and discussion. Many of those gains will not be easily lost.
The Bill is a landmark. I am delighted to know it will go through its final debate unopposed. I am pleased about the issues that it represents. The more that they command the bipartisan support of the House, the better. It is against that background, and in the belief that the Bill will make a major contribution in many areas, that I have the greatest pleasure in commending it to the House.

Mr. Denis Howell: I congratulate the Ministers on the way in which they have piloted the Bill through its stages,

and especially on meeting the Opposition on a number of points of substantial importance. We can claim more than a little credit. I do not wish to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Minister to suggest that tactical manoeuvring in Committee might have assisted him to bring the Bill to this stage. The record will speak for itself.
The Bill has shown Parliament at its best. It has produced the minimum acceptable terms on which it will be possible for both sides of the House to give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading. We wish it well. I have an awful feeling that we may be considering it again in the late autumn, but we must wait and see.
The Bill is three Bills in one. More than 1,000 amendments in both Houses have been tabled to it. The Minister properly paid tribute to his officials. As many of them are old friends of mine, and served me also, I hope that he will not object if I add my appreciation to his. He mentioned the division that was sent to Bristol. I was never in favour of that devolutionary proposal, although I am sure that it was a pleasant prospect. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not object if, in the exceptional circumstances that the head of the division—Mr. Alan Leavett—will be retiring soon, I express appreciation to him and wish him well. He gave considerable service to the Labour Government, and I know he has done so for the present Government, too.
I wish to mention the Clerk who served us in Committee. He is one of our newer Clerks, but he took on an extremely involved Bill and did the job magnificently. He was of great assistance to both sides of the Committee. Those remarks may be out of order, but I ask the Clerk who is present to convey to him our appreciation.
The Government can rely upon their advisers, but the Opposition, when dealing with such a complex Bill, are in great difficulty. Specialised advice is not available to us. At some time Parliament will have to consider its procedures in that respect. I cannot for the life of me understand why there should not be access for Opposition parties to the specialised advice available to the Government within the Civil Service, as is the case in other countries. That would make for a more informed discussion. It might have saved half the time that we have spent on the Bill. It should be possible to talk to officials before we table amendments. I leave that thought with the House.
As such a facility is not available, the Opposition are left entirely with the prospect of obtaining advice from the voluntary organisations. They have been first-class in the service that they have rendered to us. They cover the spectrum of what might be regarded as the leisure industry, if that is the right term in this context. They represent the interests of millions.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has millions of members. The Friends of the Earth Ltd. has been briefing us, especially during the early stages of the Bill's consideration. The Council for National Parks and the Council for the Protection of Rural England have been represented at almost every one of our sittings. The League Against Cruel Sports was very active when we were discussing snares, where we made some progress. It has had its disappointments in other respects. The Ramblers' Association has reason to think that it has been badly treated. However, it has the satisfaction of knowing that the issues of grave concern to it and its members have been aired. The National Anglers' Council represents millions of people. The Royal Yachting Association was


active when we were discussing marine preservation. The National Farmers' Union is not often praised from the Labour Benches. However, it deserves praise on this occasion. It has been extremely helpful to us, as has the Country Landowners' Association.
The Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council have sent their officers to the House to be available whenever we want to meet them. One would wish to meet the members of those organisations more often. Whenever one visits the schools, as I often do, and organisations based in cities and towns, one finds a growing concern about the state of the environment and about countryside matters. That has been generated by organisations such as those to which I have referred. That is much to their credit.
This is primarily a wildlife Bill. It achieves much in that direction. However, the first part of the Bill, which lists protected species and seeks to safeguard endangered species of animals and flora and fauna, is late in getting on to the statute book having regard to our EEC commitments, which require us to enact measures of this sort. That was one of our tactical advantages. We knew that the Government had a commitment to the EEC to promote the Bill.
We have made some progress in many areas. I have mentioned sites of special scientific interest, where we have achieved reciprocal notification. We discussed moorlands earlier today and I think that the publication of maps will be a great help. The establishment of marine nature reserves is an exciting new concept. The Government did not intend to embrace all those areas when the Bill began its life in another place. However, the arguments have won the day. They have had popular support in both Houses. We are grateful that the Government have accepted them.
We still have our fears about whether the voluntary system will work. There was a feeling on both sides of the House that this is the last opportunity for us to ensure that the voluntary system works in safeguarding the national heritage of our countryside and wildlife. There is a determination on both sides of the House that if the voluntary system fails we shall deal with the matter far more rigorously.
Parliament is placing its trust in the good sense of the voluntary system operating in this area. Those of us who fear for that and wonder whether we are doing the right thing nevertheless hope that the faith which Parliament is putting in the voluntary system, particularly in our national parks and in our landowners and farmers, proves to be justified. Those of us in the Opposition who have the gravest doubts about it will be the most delighted if that faith turns out to be well placed.
One disappointment is that there is nothing in the Bill which will adequately safeguard landscape and hedgerows. We must not forget that we lost 40 per cent. of our deciduous woodlands between 1947 and 1980. We lost 120,000 miles of our hedgerows between 1946 and 1974. That is the size of the problem which we set out to deal with.
I hope very much that some of the measures which we have taken will help, but I am bound to put on record the view of the Ramblers' Association, for example, that at the end of the day the Bill is a disappointment and, with regard to part III, it will have to ensure that Parliament and members of the Government continue to be made aware of its views on the subjects of access to the countryside and

the obstruction of rights of way and particularly its views about new procedures for the updating of definitive maps which it feels to be inadequate for its purpose.
Likewise, I am advised by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Council for National Parks that they are both convinced that the Bill does little to address the problems which are likely to be faced by Britain's wildlife and countryside in the next decade. We can only hope that their fears prove to be unfounded, but it is right that we should put those views and that sense of disappointment of responsible organisations on the record.
The biggest achievement of the Bill is that it has aroused a national awareness about environmental questions, protection and the countryside. That is vital in an era of increased leisure, which the country is bound to have to face up to. In that new awareness is the realisation that the protection of habitat is more important than the listing of species and endangered species. It is the destruction of that habitat, which I think we all now understand as a result of the debates on the Bill, to which we shall have to pay continuing attention. The Opposition will certainly do so.
We have gone for the voluntary system and for management agreement, but we have also gone for annual reports and public knowledge which will enable this to be the start, not the end, of a continuing debate, almost an annual debate, on these questions. Because we have succeeded in doing that, I believe that we are well justified in giving the Bill a Third Reading and in expressing our appreciation to the Minister of State and especially to the Under-Secretary of State. I warmly endorse the right hon. Gentleman's views in that respect and hope that the Bill soon reaches the statute book. I hope that from time to time we shall be able to return to the matters of great importance. which we have identified and highlighted for the first time in a dramatic manner which will serve the national interest.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I commend the Bill. I wish to make a few observations on clause 43, which was introduced as a new clause in Committee, so I was not able to make comments about it earlier. It concerns the national parks.
I have a strong constituency interest in the matter, representing a part of the Lake District special planning board, as I do. I welcome the provisions. They will enable the representation of district councillors on the Lake District special planning board to be increased from two to four. I sincerely believe that this is a matter of considerable constitutional importance. If the national parks are to survive and have the good will of the public, which I earnestly desire, there has to be some accommodation of the real frustrations that many who live in them undoubtedly feel.
It is difficult to describe the sense of frustration that some people have, and this is noun the hour to go into detail. However, I should like to instance one or two points. First, all reasonable people in my constituency recognise the need for bodies such as the Lake District special planning board and are the first to give it credit for the good work that it often does. Everything that I say should be taken in the light of that comment. However, many people perceive that it is utterly remote. Even rational and reasonable


people who accept many of its strictures and restrictions—including myself—find sometimes that they are unable to agree with its more extreme decisions.
All government, by definition, must be restrictive and undermine the rights of some in the interests of many, and, therefore, will always disappoint some members of any society. However, the part of the Lake District in my constituency—the South Lakeland area—covers both the planning board area and its own area, which is not covered by the board and for which, of course, the district council is responsible for planning decisions. People obviously feel resentment towards the South Lakeland council over its own planning decisions, as would happen with any planning authority, but it is in no way of the same degree as the resentment that people within the national park feel on occasions against the decisions made by the board. They are both planning authorities dealing with broadly the same thing, even though, of course, matters are more restrictive within the national park, so one has to ask why. I am to be faced with a petition from one village on the edge of the national park, which intends to invite the Secretary of State to remove it from the national park and leave it in the South Lakeland council planning authority. I await the petition with interest.
I suggest that one reason for the frustration is that, when the district council is the planning authority, people can contact their district councillor. They can see him in a public house and make him feel ashamed and concerned about some of the decisions for which he is responsible. However, I am afraid that that type of contact does not exist between the board and the citizens of the area in which it is situated.
It will be argued that the county council has overall control of the special planning board and that the citizens of Cumbria in the Lake District special planning board area can contact their county councillors. However, that does not seem to work very well. In any event, in the context of the Government's policy that more planning discretion should be given to district rather than county councils, it is right that there should be this greater political representation of district councillors on the Lake District special planning board.
I have outlined an overall political problem, which I do not believe to be party political, but I must add that in the context of recent events in Cumbria there has been a superimposition of a clearly party political problem. In their wisdom, the electors of Cumbria at the recent county council elections elected a Labour county council. Prior to those elections we had from South Lakeland, of course, a representative appointed by the county council from the district council upon the board. We do not enjoy that, because the Labour county council has sought to appoint all the representatives from districts other than South Lakeland. I say nothing about the quality of the work of those councillors, but it undermines the confidence of many people in the board, bearing in mind that the South Lakeland district council therefore has no voice—until these provisions become law—in the board's deliberations, yet it comprises half the population of the national park and is concerned with half the planning applications. Therefore, it feels a great deal of frustration.
We welcome these provisions, but I do not believe that they will satisfy our hunger. We welcome them because we prefer half a loaf to nothing. Many people in the South

Lakeland area contend that there should be more than four district council representatives on the planning board in order to enable an area such as South Lakeland, which comprises more than half the population of the board's area, to have possibly the right to two district councillors on the board. There might then well be an unanswerable case in equity that we should have a representative on the board's planning committee. I believe that we shall need that one day. I believe that we shall ask for another helping later, although I am happy that this provision, which I very much welcome, should be digested before we ask for more.
I ask my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to keep the problem under constant review and recognise that in due course it may be necessary to do more.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) will forgive me if I do not take up his references to his local authorities, because I wish to be brief. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will visit their licensed premises early in the evening, since I trust that his local councillors do not spend too much time there.
The hon. Gentleman said that half a loaf was better than no bread, and I tend to share his view. But it would be churlish to make too many gestures in that direction at this hour, particularly as the speeches of both my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the Minister struck the right notes. The tributes that were paid were entirely deserved. I am sure that every member of the Committee, as well as other Members present tonight, would endorse that.
The Minister avoided striking any excessive note of self-congratulation. Many of us believe that the Government have been a little too hesitant in not allowing sufficient further strides forward.
The Bill is, of course, better than it was. It was better when it left the Lords. Perhaps we were able to sustain some of the advances that were made there. The Lords may make one or two further moves towards progress before the Bill is enacted. Monitoring will be necessary. The Minister may not have noticed the following comment in the Farmer and Stockbreeder:
Many of the concessions the Government has made may prove to be more apparent than real.
That comment caused me a little concern. I hope that monitoring will establish that it may have been inaccurate.
Before the Bill is enacted, the Government may have to give further consideration to clause 16. There has been a reference to questions in the European Parliament. There now seem to be grounds to suspect that the Community may well rule that clause 16 and clause 4(3) are inappropriate. The Minister deserves a holiday, and I hope that he will enjoy one. But I also hope that before the recess is over he will inform those members of the Committee who were interested in this matter of the Government's view of that Community question.
Thousands of miles of hedgerow have been lost. The one sad omission from the Bill is adequate protection for the hedgerow. The man in the street will find it astonishing that hedgerows have received inadequate attention. The first thing that he would say, if asked, would be that there has been far too great a loss of hedgerows. The parish boundary hedgerows—the sort that were described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)


in the early stages of the Committee—the hedgerows of enormous antiquity, of almost Stone Age character, could have been preserved. I trust that an hon. Member who draws a high place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills next Session, or an hon. Member using the Ten-Minute Bill procedure or such other procedures as are available, will seek to introduce a Bill to provide for hedgerow preservation orders. That will give the local authority, through the planning authorities, the opportunity to designate hedgerows which deserve to be protected.
The tree preservation order is useful. A hedgerow preservation order system would be beneficial, too. I hope that before long this Government—or, I hope, one of another political complexion—will ensure that the necessary further steps will be taken in this direction. Half a loaf is better than no bread, and I believe that the tributes that have been expressed about the Bill are entirely justified. I hope that all hon. Members will echo those tributes.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) will forgive me for not pursuing his points in detail, but there may be a great deal to be said for the introduction of hedgerow preservation orders. We cannot go on for ever losing hedgerows, even though there may be a case for some degree of rationalisation in some parts of the country.
I welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister about resources for the Nature Conservancy Council. Governments and Parliaments all too often will ends without willing means. In this Bill the Government have rightly preferred to follow the route of conservation by consent while improving the procedures under which SSSIs are identified and operations affecting them are in turn notified to the NCC.
However, a variety of changes and improvements have been made to the Bill so that the original financial memorandum to the Bill on Report has been overtaken by events. I believe that it envisaged an average annual expenditure of between £600,000 and £700,000 for management agreements and land acquisition. On the basis that additional responsibilities have been added, it is certain that more money will now be needed to enable the NCC to perform the duties which have been imposed upon it. Conservation by consent does not simply mean conservation on the cheap. Those days are gone. The agency of the Government which is concerned with advising landowners on conservation should be properly equipped to provide the kind of full and early response that landowners who are keen to conserve will expect.
The Bill consolidates and extends the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 and the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. It adds some totally new measures such as those already referred to for marine nature reserves. Since being established in 1973, the NCC has coped with a budget which in real terms has not increased in spite of the extra responsibilities laid upon it in 1975 and 1976. It would be unrealistic now to expect the council once more to absorb the considerable new duties that the Bill imposes upon it without some further Government help. If the Government do not give that help, if the council is not an effective body because of a lack of resources, it will be that much more difficult to achieve what the Bill sets out to do—conservation by communication, co-operation and consent.
Therefore, I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and I hope that before long he will be able to make a statement to the House after he has had time to consider the Nature Conservancy Council's assessments of its requirements in the light of the new duties imposed upon it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I join with the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in paying tribute to all the pressure groups from outside that have given us such excellent briefings. I make the point to them that this is not the end of the Bill. There is a final round for them and all our constituents who are concerned about it. The Bill has been changed so much since it left the Lords that the Lords will have to spend quite a bit of time going over it. I hope that all of the groups concerned about the Bill will see this as one last opportunity to push the Minister to provide either the concessions he was going to provide as long as he was pushed or those that he would have liked to give but for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I appeal to all those groups that have been lobbying us so hard to make one more effort to get a few more improvements made in the Bill when it goes back to the Lords.
Part 1 seems to have done a considerable amount to reduce some of the cruelty towards animals and birds, and to give protection to our plants. I suspect that one problem is that it still gives much more protection to the things considered to be attractive in the countryside and not enough protection to the less glamorous insects and algae that are still extremely important in the life chain of the countryside and that we ought to be protecting more. It still allows far too much cruelty, particularly in the types of snares used. We still have some way to go.
Everyone on the Labour Benches has stressed that it is extremely important that the voluntary system in part II should work this time. It is the last chance for it. One of the major problems about part II is that we still have vast amounts of money available to the farming community that can be used to destroy the countryside rather than conserve it. It is sad that from. the Common Market and its agricultural fund there are large amounts of money available to create butter mountains and wine lakes but very little money to conserve our own mountains, lakes and countryside generally.
In the Bill we have not altered the balance of the resources. We still have the farmer who is finding it very difficult in the marginal areas to make enough money and to have a decent standard of living for the hours he puts in. As a result, there is the temptation to damage the countryside to improve his economic situation.
I find part III profoundly disappointing, as will the ramblers and all those who go walking in the countryside and want to use footpaths. They will be coming back to this House very soon wanting much more effective legislation.
The major message that ought to go out on Third Reading is that if we want to protect our countryside it is the attitude of every person who uses it that is important. It is extremely important that everyone should treat the countryside with care and concern. Here I refer to the motorist driving through, looking at the attractions of the countryside and flicking his cigarette packet out of the window, and the walker who goes into the countryside to


enjoy it but leaves behind his litter—the bottle that becomes broken or the tin that goes rusty. I have in mind the farmer contemplating tearing up the hedgerow.
All the people who use the countryside should think back to the old belief of the traditional farmer that at the end of his life he should leave his farm to succeeding generations—preferably his son—in as good heart as when he received it, or possibly even better. We should all believe that it is our duty to ensure that we leave the countryside in better heart for succeeding generations than when we received it. The countryside is one of our most precious inheritances. We must ensure that it is in good heart.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Early on, I approached the Bill with considerable misgivings, but the skilful work of my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team has convinced me. The Government have put in a great deal of enterprise in bringing forward the Bill at this time and grasping so many of these difficult nettles, certainly during my exciting and stimulating period of service on the Standing Committee.
I wish to make a small but important point. Fundamentally, this is a symptom-bashing Bill. If the structure of the market, which is one of the aspects from which I have considered the Bill, were right, many of the problems with which we have been grappling would not have arisen. Basically it is lack of return in the market place for the agriculture industry that has given rise to the problems. We must take that seriously on board. We are all consumers, and we place almost intolerable burdens on the agriculture industry. We must ask ourselves why a piece of wetland which has lain idle as a natural habitat for a thousand years suddenly appears attractive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) so eloquently put it earlier this week in relation to moorland, the answer is need, not greed. That need is demonstrated by the steady pattern of falling farm incomes shown year after year in agriculture White Papers.
I illustrate the point with an example from my own constituency. A dairy farmer who 17 years ago ran 35 cows on 100 acres and made a reasonable living now has to run 130 cows on 110 acres, with all the additional strain that that involves, in order to achieve the same real income. That is a stress situation. As consumers and as Parliament we have been piling stress upon stress on the agriculture industry, as figures have shown time and again during the passage of the Bill. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, 54 per cent. of farm income now comes from grants. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) also drew attention to the massive amount of grant aid. This should all come from self-generated income. It should be investment capable of being made from the return produced by the farm itself, rather than being taken out and handed back in lump sums which are capable of creating distortions in the industry.
These are important matters. I therefore make this one plea on behalf of the agriculture industry. Let us always consider what will be the consequences of any action that we take here when looking after the interests of the land

in general so that we do not step up the stress and fall into that funny syndrome which says that for every solution there is a problem.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: From what I have heard, I must regard myself as fortunate not to have served on the Standing Committee. Nevertheless, this is a subject with which I have lived all my life. As a land agent, I have had to sit in the middle, between farmers, tenants and landlords, and I believe that from a countryman's point of view I am able to see many of the problems from two angles.
I very much agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about the major effect of the Bill on the country. It has aroused awareness. We must continue to press that because, given good will on both sides, a voluntary system is far better than a compulsory one. If rules and regulations are constantly waved in front of them, people are more likely to try to get behind them and do something harmful.
My district is 95 per cent. arable. There are few footpaths in the arable counties. To be honest, there are few bulls running about in the fields. A county such as Norfolk has a fast-growing population that comes mainly from the towns, and many such people are not aware of the way in which the countryside works. We must try to bring together farmers who are prepared to show their farms to townspeople and townspeople who appreciate the problems of the farmer.
In an arable county, many footpaths run slap through the middle of arable fields. They have been out of use for many years. When such an area was grassland, it was often the easiest way to get to the church, the pub or the school. However, those footpaths are no longer required. Schoolchildren are generally bussed and the pub has probably closed. The way to overcome this problem is to divert those footpaths round the headlands and to provide alternative walks and riding facilities wherever possible.
A long-distance walk that has been five or six years in the making is now proposed for my area. I believe that is now being considered by the Countryside Commission. I hope that it will come to my right hon. Friend's Department before long and that he will push ahead with it. It is called the Peddars Way. It will run about 100 miles southwards from the North Coast. That could relieve a lot of pressure in various parts of the counties through which it will pass, because at present many people who want to walk in the countryside must do so through arable crops, thereby causing considerable damage.
The Forestry Commission has many rules that prevent people from riding in Forestry Commission land. That is worrying, because there are few outlets for children and others to ride in arable counties, except in the Forestry Commission lands.
I totally agree with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). We should preserve the hedgerows down our green lanes. Until 150 years ago, Norfolk was nothing but a sheepwalk with no hedgerows. We are now returning to the same state, because hedgerows have recently been grubbed up only because modern farming methods demand larger fields. The huge and expensive machines that must be used to keep farming afloat must be used in larger fields.
The Bill will do immense good, but we shall need continuous help from all who love the countryside. We


must not pick on one point and ram it home regardless of the interests of those who live in the countryside or want to walk in the countryside. I sincerely hope that I shall be able to do my bit to bring together the two groups of people who live and work in the countryside.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) meant well when he said that he was fortunate not to have been on the Committee because of the unconscionable time that the Committee proceedings took. Most of us on the Committee have not grudged that time, partly because it has, in the best parliamentary tradition, been a process of self-education in which many of us have learnt much from the interest groups to which tribute has been paid. I hope that those interest groups have learnt something from us about political constraints and the difficulties, of those who take part in cause politics. I hope that between the interest groups and the politicians on both sides there has been a two-way traffic in ideas.
The Minister answered my question about cash for the Nature Conservancy Council. I deeply and passionately agree with the argument made some hours ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) that we may find that planning and listening will be necessary in the future.
Within the parameters of the Bill, cash is all-important. I accept what my right hon. Friend stressed, that there is a delicate issue about whether the State should pay people for not doing things. If one follows the line of the Bill, cash for the Nature Conservancy Council is of the greatest importance.
The Minister said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that one day he would produce what he called a true history of the Bill. When he leaves office, I hope that within a year of doing so, before he has forgotten what happened, he will keep that promise. I should like to have a true history from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). If Mr. Alan Leavett were to leave the Civil Service, he might write a true history of the Bill. There is much to be said from every point of view.
I have before me details of the business for Wednesday 21 October and Thursday 22 October as announced by the Leader of the House this afternoon. It will be
Consideration of any Lords Messages which may be received
on both those days. Without being impertinent to the other House, I make one suggestion for a Lords message that I hope will come back. I think that their Lordships should have another bite at the cherry. We owe a considerable debt to Lord Melchett, Lord Craigton and many others interested in the subject for the amount of spadework that they did before the Bill came to this place. I hope that in September or October, when they have had time to reflect on it—some of us are glad that they did not have to spatchcock their consideration of it in a hurry before the Royal wedding—they will return to it. I hope that in the messages on either the Wednesday or the Thursday when we return from the recess there will be some sort of message from the Lords on the reserve powers for the SSSIs.

Mr. Denis Howell: And moorlands.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the subject of moorlands. I hope that the Lords will reconsider and in the fullness of time reflect on what

has been said in their Lordships' House by Lord Kennet, who has experience of these matters. He has said mea culpa in his ministerial experience in the late 1960s, that the voluntary system has been tried and tried again. If it was to be successful, some of us believe that it would already have been successful. I hope that the Lords will not think it impertinent if we suggest that they should reflect and send us a message concerning reserve powers.

Mr. Monro: I should be less than courteous if I did not respond to the kind remarks made by hon. Members on both sides. I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for his assistance during the passage of the Bill.
At times my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services played some remarkable tunes on the procedural organ to allow us to continue discussions on marine nature reserves and SSSIs with the co-operation of the Opposition and enormously to the benefit of the Bill. By devious means, we resolved practical problems of debating amendments in the best possible way. I think that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will agree that that would never have happened on a Scottish Committee, but we have learnt what can be done in other Committees.
I join in the tributes to the assistance we have received from the staff of the House and the staff of the Department. We also value the assistance of members of the Committee, some of whom are not here tonight. Every hon. Member on the Committee played a part. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) has been discreet today. He is an Opposition spokesman, but he has not been involved on Third Reading. He played his part, as did the Whips on the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe arid Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) mentioned his concern about the Lake District special planning board, and, as a not-so-distant parliamentary neighbour across the border, I also noted with some apprehension the dramatic changes in personnel after the election. I shall follow the situation with interest, but perhaps the changes that we have male in district council representation will give my hon. Friend some help in future.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) played an important part in Committee and he is concerned, as are other hon. Members, about clause 16. I believe that when the dust has settled and our friends in Europe see how we propose to move in future, all will he well. The hon. Gentleman said that an important issue throughout proceedings on the Bill was hon. Members' concern about the loss of hedgerows and how we should improve the position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and the hon. Member for West Lothian both referred to resources for the Nature Conservancy Council. That is crucial and I am sure that they will bear in mind what my right hon. Friend said in moving the Third Reading.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) deserves praise for his persistence in putting forward his views, which were not always shared even by his hon. Friends, with great good humour and a lucidity that we all envy. He was a valuable member of the Committee. I note what he said about part III, but I think that when a few enthusiastic ramblers have walked the footpaths they will


see that, after all the consultations that took place before the Bill was introduced, the provisions in the measure are more constructive than the hon. Gentleman gives us credit for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) rightly raised a key issue which was never far from my mind—the profitability of agriculture, in terms not of a prosperous industry,, but of a fair return on capital. Agriculture has gone through a sticky time in recent years, and there has merely been a natural wish to try to make the most of the land that one owns or tenants. One understands that some farmers have moved ahead of the general approach on conservation and habitat which has been one of the main issues of the Bill. I much appreciated my hon. Friend's link with the National Farmers' Union. He and colleagues from Wales and Scotland have put forward most ably the farming issues.
I welcomed the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). He has practical experience of the land, both from the point of view of farming and of land agency. He was right to highlight the issue of the continuous work that lies ahead of us all in terms of education on conservation.
We should remember that we have started from a new base. We did not start from the point at which the Bill was published, because it contained many new developments when it came to the House. We have tried to keep a fair balance, whether in field sports, conservationist groups, or animal welfare. I believe that the RSPCA has not been mentioned, but I am happy to bring it in. There is also the work of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council.
I want to highlight the improvements that we have made concerning the SSSIs and the introduction of the MNRs. They have brought much closer the two Departments which are involved—the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The co-operation and co-ordination that we have developed will be of immense importance to whichever party is in power in the years ahead.
The words of the hon. Member for West Lothian, who has played such a prominent part throughout the Bill's proceedings, were very similar to my thoughts—that we have all learnt a great deal about one another, whether those who have helped from the outside or those of us who tried to promote the Bill from inside Parliament. After their Lordships have studied carefully what we have done, I am sure that they will realise that we have improved the good work that they did. The Bill has evolved. It has not changed dramatically, but it contains major improvements, which they will surely appreciate and welcome, such as those affecting the SSSIs and the MNRs.
I feel that their Lordships will have a peaceful two months' contemplation, thinking that they started something that has developed and grown into a thoroughly good Bill, and that they need do little more than make one or two suggestions in October. I am confident, by and large, in what the Bill will do and that we have presented a Bill to their Lordships which is very much better than the one which came to this House, and that we shall all be proud in future of our record on the habitat and agricultural conservation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Employment and Training Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 1 in page 2, line 36, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment to correct an error in the drafting of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

EXEMPTION FROM LEVIES

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 6, line 21, after "(iii)" Insert—

"neither paragraph (i) nor (ii) above applies but"

Mr. Peter Morrison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Again, this is a technical amendment, and it achieves our original aim.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

ENTERPRISE ZONES

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 7, line 8, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

"(1) No employer shall be liable to any levy imposed by an order made under section 4 or section 9(1)(b) of the Industrial Training Act 1964 in respect of any establishment situated wholly or mainly within an area designated as an enterprise zone under Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and for the purposes of any order made under the said section 4 such art establishment shall be treated as if it were not carrying on business.

(1A) No such levy as is mentioned in subsection (1) above shall be imposed by reference to emoluments paid or payable to an employee whose employment is carried on at or from such an establishment as is mentioned in that subsection."

Mr. Peter Morrison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, perhaps with this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(2) An employer shall not be obliged to comply with a requirement imposed under section 6 of the said Act of 1964 (returns, information and records) in respect of an establishment or employee if—

(a) at the time the requirement is imposed the establishment is situated as mentioned in subsection (1) above or, as the case may be, the employee's employment is carried on at or from such an establishment, or
(b) the requirement relates to a period during which the establishment was so situated or, as the case may be, the employee's employment was so carried on."
Both these amendments relate to enterprise zones. Again, they are technical. They amend defects in the original Bill as it left this House. I shall, of course, be happy to answer any questions which the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) may wish to ask me.

Mr. Harold Walker: I do not wish to detain the House for long, nor do I want to encourage the House to oppose the amendment. But I should be grateful if the Minister would give us a little more information not directly about the amendment but about a matter which is related to the amendment.
The amendment deals with levies and, of course, levies are imposed by industrial training boards. Throughout the progress of the Bill in both Houses, we have had overhanging it the shadow of the announcement by the Secretary of State on 26 November last year that it was the Government's intention that statutory boards should he retained for only a few key sectors of industry. We have also had hanging over us the shadow of the review that the Secretary of State required the Manpower Services Commission to carry out, and we have the report of the review only today. I regret to say that it is available only in the Library. Copies are not available in the Vote Office.
We had assumed that the Secretary of State would make a statement about the review and the future of some of the boards. Apparently that is not to be the case. We are to be satisfied with the mere publication of the report. But it leaves some very important questions outstanding.
First, there is the future of the financing of the boards. Since 1974, the boards have had their operating costs met by the Exchequer in the form of grants from the Department of Employment, and the Secretary of State has said that the funding of the operating costs will terminate by the end of this year.
If we are not to have any statement from the Secretary of State arising from the MSC's review until the House returns after the recess, it means that the boards will have a period of three months in which they will be in the greatest doubt about the source of their finances after the end of the year—that is, the boards which are presumed to survive.
In my view, the boards and their staffs, whose jobs are bound up with the boards, are entitled to some statement from the Government before the House rises for the recess about what the arrangements will be at the end of the year when the cash runs out.
Secondly, I believe that we are entitled to some assurance from the Government that no decisions will be taken on the recommendations of the review body until the House has had a full opportunity to debate its report. On a quick reading of the Manpower Services Commission's report, I am enormously encouraged to note that the commission appears not to share the view of the Secretary of State about the need to reduce the number of boards. In many cases, the commission sees the need for the continuation of statutory arrangements.
The House should be given the opportunity to debate the report and to make recommendations preferring the advice of the commission to that of the Secretary of State before he makes any decisions. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the House will have that chance after the recess, and that any decisions about new orders relating to the scope and number of boards will be deferred until after that.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) that it would not be sensible to delay more than necessary the decisions about the future of the industrial training boards, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has made that clear.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have been in a little difficulty. For very understandable reasons, the Manpower Services Commission asked the Government if it might delay delivery of the report of the review from the end of June to the end of July. That has put us back just a little.
As for the operating costs, it is fair to say that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that that is a matter which he will consider very carefully. He realises that in the present state of industry and so on, the cost to industry of affording the operating costs is an added burden. So the right hon. Gentleman's points are well understood. We are looking carefully at the matter.
On the question of the review, the Bill gives Ministers the opportunity, having consulted the MSC, to make up their minds. My right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House as and when he has made up his mind about the future of the ITBs. I think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants. I take on board and understand that it is important to reach quick decisions because the uncertainty is not good for training or for the staffs of the boards who have done a good job in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ACT 1964

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 12, line 28, at end Insert—
and
(c) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
(3) Without prejudice to the genarality of subsection (5) of section 1 and subsection (5) of section 9 of this Act, an order under either of those sections may vary or revoke an order under subsection (2) of this section.".
4A. At the end of section 12(1) of that Act there shall be inserted the words "and the order imposing the levy shall make provision as to the time within which such an appeal may be made".

Mr. Peter Morrison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is technical. If the Opposition wish to cross-question me, I shall be happy to answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — London Docklands Development Corporation

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move,
That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Newham London Borough Council) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take the next motion—
That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Southwark London Borough Council) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

Mr. Shaw: The orders were laid before the House on 11 June. On 1 July the House approved orders setting up the London Docklands Development Corporation, vesting in it certain lands owned by the Greater London Council and the Port of London Authority. In the debate on the orders my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained that further orders had been laid affecting some 142 acres of land belonging to Southwark borough council and some 87 acres owned by Newham council. It is those two orders that we are concerned with tonight.
The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 enables urban development corporations to acquire land compulsorily and, in the case of publicly owned land, by means of a vesting order subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. The principal purpose of the latter provision is to enable UDCs to have enough land at the outset for their own early projects and to prepare a range of sites for private development. Accordingly, in the shadow period, the LDDC discussed likely demand for land with the present owners, the transport and planning authorities, financial institutions and private sector agencies such as the volume house-builders.
The corporation put forward proposals for the early acquisition of some 840 acres of publicly owned land. Orders vesting about 280 acres of PLA land and 15 acres of GLC land have already been approved. Two more orders vesting land belonging to Tower Hamlets and further GLC land have also been laid and will come before us on another occasion. The LDDC is also negotiating the purchase of land from the British Gas Corporation, British Rail and the Central Electricity Generating Board.
The Government's case for the orders is that, to be effective, the London Docklands Development Corporation needs to own a substantial amount of vacant or underused land on which it can carry out any necessary preliminary work and then release it for development. That is a key component of its strategy. Most such sites are in public ownership and several of them are included in the orders before us. Hon. Members will recall that the Government's proposal to set up the development corporation was considered by a Select Committee in another place. It heard evidence, sat for 50 days and produced a unanimous report that endorsed the Government's proposals for a proposed change in the boundary. Although that Committee did not consider the specific proposals for vesting land, it clearly accepted the need to vest land in the corporation.
The two vesting orders before us today were laid on 11 June and were open to petitions for a period of 14 days.
No petitions were received against the Southwark order. One petition, by Newham borough council, was received against the Newham order. In its petition, Newham argued that the vesting order would deprive the borough of potential sites for public sector and/or mid-tenure housing, that the inclusion of all or part of the sites of the proposed local centres would prejudice the timely provision of the community facilities envisaged and that the inclusion of statutory allotments would deprive allotment holders of their statutory rights while leaving Newham with the commitment to relocate them. The Secretary of State said that the availability of housing land had been considered during the lengthy proceedings on the designation order and that Newham had been given assurances that the land required for community facilities in the local centres would be made available when needed. He said that the LDDC had already acquired certain sites from the Port of London Authority for the relocation of allotment holders and had offered the sites to Newham for statutory allotments.
Newham borough council's petition and my right hon. Friend's representations were considered by the Hybrid Instruments Committee in another place. That Committee took the view that the issue of land for housing and allotments had already beem dealt with sufficiently by the Select Committee. The Committee felt that there were no substantial grounds of complaint concerning the land required for community facilities within the local centres. It concluded that no further inquiry into any of these matters was required.
I commend the orders to the House. They will enable the LDDC to take possession of the sites and make them available for early development.

Mr. Ted Graham: The hour is late and I do not intend to delay the House for long. However, I remind the House that the Opposition have opposed the concept of the corporation. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is in his place. He played a notable part in our proceedings in Committe when we considered the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. He explained what the issues meant for his constituents and he mounted a vigorous defence of the organisation that has been superseded by the urban development corporation.
We must come to grips with reality. In the debate on 1 July my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) maintained our opposition to these measures. However, we are moving on to the next stage. The Minister has explained what the orders mean. This is an opportunity for us to raise our queries and to express our objection. Our basic objection remains that the local people will have taken from them a great deal of expertise and the opportunity to control their own affairs.
I have read the list of members of the Docklands urban development corporation. The team that has been assembled by the Secretary of State is strong on entrepreneurial skills. It has a great deal of experience of national governmental matters. It has some local governmental experience, but it is extremely light on intimate knowledge of the docklands area. The exception is the vice-chairman, who is my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I pay tribute to his service to the area that he represents and to London and the docklands generally over many years. Whatever else

his future may hold, I see him making a notable contribution in his new role to those whom he has represented. I wish him well.
On 1 July my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey said that it was the intention of the Secretary of State to issue an invitation to each of the three local authorities concerned. As I have said, the deficiencies in the team that has been assembled stick out like a sole thumb. There is an absence of people who really understand the area.
This matter is not directly within the brief of the debate, but the Minister should expect questions such as this. How far has the Secretary of State got with his intentions to invite each of the three local authorities to provide a person to sit upon the urban development corporation? As he will appreciate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that has nothing to do with the orders, which are simply concerned with the transfer of land from the London boroughs of Newham and Southwark. It is not a general debate on the development corporation.

Mr. Graham: I appreciate that, but I should have thought that the ability of the urban development corporation to use the land better could depend on the quality of the members who serve on the board. I take your point, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Will the Minister say to what extent the attitude of the three local authorities is changing? I can appreciate that the urban development corporation is a fait accompli and that we are now involved in matters which are changing if the operation is to be a success. Hitherto, the local authorities maintained a united opposition.
There are a number of matters of great significance concerning the vesting of land. Will the Minister tell us something about the compensation which will be paid to the local authorities and the other present owners of the land? We are talking about the land being vested by compulsory purchase and by the other procedures, taking it away from the present owners and giving it to the new owner, the urban development corporation. Will the Minister outline not only the terms but how they will be determined? Will this additional capital receipt have an effect on the housing improvement and the HIP allocation? The Minister will know from his experience that, whenever land or properties are sold, particularly council houses, that helps to enhance the HIP allocations of the local authority. Will the additional sums which will come to the local authorities from the forced sale of their land affect the HIP allocations? That is germane to what we are discussing tonight.
I was intrigued when I read the debate on 1 July to see that the Minister of State had said that he looked forward to there being a greater emphasis on private housing and housing associations. Is the Minister aware of the current depression in the house-building industry as a whole? On the vested land, will there be a proper mix of private as well as council or publicly owned housing? The Minister said that the plan could not succeed without support and the enthusiasm of the local communities. Will he tell us a little about that?
In the Southwark order there is a reference to the Greenland dock, which is the oldest dock in dockland. It dates back to the sixteenth century. At the moment it is


used substantially for leisure purposes and as a play area for children. Will the Minister tell us, when land which is presently used for one purpose is used for the UDC, what will happen to the displaced people? He made particular reference to the fears at Newham about the allotments.
The House of Lords third report from the Hybrid Instruments Committee which was printed on 16 July states:
The Hybrid Instruments Committee, however, are satisfied that the position of the allotment holders was adequately canvassed before the Docklands Select Committee.
I wonder what "adequately canvassed" means. How satisfied are people with what they will get from that? It continues:
The matter is dealt with in paragraph 8.6 of their Report.
Paragraph 8.6 states:
Certain allotment holders in Beckton also expressed fears that their position would be adversely affected by a UDC but the Committee do not share these fears.
To be fair, in opening the Minister indicated certain ways in which he or his advisers believe that those fears can be set at rest. However, it is legitimate to raise that fear—which, no doubt, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South will also mention—and also the fears of local community centres.
The die is cast in this order, but not for future vesting orders. Tonight we are trying to get an idea from the first vesting order. There are lists and plot numbers concerned with the maps and orders, and the maps state:
These maps are for illustrative purposes only.
However, it would have been useful to have marks on the maps or areas delineated with a number so that we could link a spot on the maps with a plot number. The plots are not numbered on the maps. The debate serves a number of purposes, as other vesting orders which have been laid are yet to come before us.
The official Opposition are far from satisfied, although we do not intend to divide the House. However, that does not mean that we shall not do so on future orders.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is perhaps appropriate that I, rather than my hon. Friends representing the Southwark area, should speak to the order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) suggested, the position north and south of the river is now somewhat different.
The Lysander site in the borough of Southwark is, we will hope, well under way, so the vesting orders will be of much greater significance north of the river, in particular in Tower Hamlets. Land remains to be vested in the London borough of Newham, particularly in relation to the Port of London Authority, the Gas Corporation, British Railways and the order that we have tonight relating to land in the ownership of the London borough.
I cannot promise to be as succinct as my hon. Friend. The constitutional significance of the urban development corporation and of the first of these vesting orders should not be underestimated. Any hon. Member with a compulsory purchase order laid in his constituency for 80 acres of publicly owned land for which plans have already been made would feel equally indignant, whatever his party. The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, who piloted the Wildlife and Countryside Bill through Committee, would feel equally

indignant if a future Government designated a wetlands conservancy corporation on the levels of Somerset where his constituency is situated and went about compulsory acquisition of land there. He would feel as strongly as I do about this matter.
The first matter that I wish to raise was touched on by my hon. Friend. It concerns the statement by the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services on 1 July. He spoke about informal plans. Atformal plans will, no doubt, be laid at some stage in relation to these sites. This vesting order gives permission for them to be vested in the LDDC but the Minister, apart from generalised remarks, has not stated the use to which they will be put.
At column 962 the Minister said:
I sought to make it clear that the success of Docklands and of the development corporation will be determined not by the ability to impose plans produced behind closed doors—
which indeed will be the case, because the LDDC will not be open to the public—
on an unwilling local population but by the ability to get the enthusiastic support of people in the area."—[Official Report, 1 July 1981; Vol 7, c. 962.]
I would like to come back to that last point on a number of other questions that I want to put to the Minister. That is the benchmark that the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services has laid down and I know from the Secretary of State that he agrees with that. The vice-chairman of the LDDC, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), said that in the last debate. So we are all agreed on that. What will these sites be used for?
The borough petitioned against these orders. The third report from the Hybrid Instruments Committee of the House of Lords refers to this. The borough council raised a number of issues with the Committee, which said that these matters had already been dealt with. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton has referred to this and quoted the reference to the allotments.
This is my first question to the Minister. I have five altogether. I understand that there has been an assurance from the LDDC that if, particularly on the triangle site, existing allotments are required for other uses, equivalent areas will be made available or acquired by the Docklands Corporation elsewhere in the area. I hope that if he has not already done so, the Minister will confirm that that is the case and, if it is not the case, that instructions, if necessary under the terms of the Act, will be given by the Secretary of State.
I emphasise the case of the allotments because the Government's record in respect of even the existing allotment holders has been particularly bad. There was the Croydon scandal, when there was great wrath in the country among allotment holders. I tell the Minister that when the borough council sought to deal with the allotment question when there was a need for land and a land transfer, an army of allotment holders complete with forks, spades and other implements that could be described as weapons in these days descended upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) when he was Prime Minister and visiting our constituency. They were by no means constrained by party political considerations. I assure the Minister that we do not want a repetition of that should a future Secretary of State act inadvisedly. I have been told that there are already people camping on the land to illustrate their disquiet.
I come to my second point about the use of this land, and that is to do with the possible use of it for housing.
My hon. Friend has referred to the findings of the Select Committee of the House of Lords and to the fact that it wanted to see a change of priorities. I quote from its findings at paragraph 8(4):
Private investors will not put money into docklands on any large scale unless they are encouraged by the presence of an environment attractive to them, including the availability of some private housing. Furthermore the evidence which the Committee have heard suggests that low-priced housing might not be beyond the. range of some young people in docklands and that the present lack of it may be one of the causes of their drifting away from the area. On the other hand, it is to be remembered that council tenants now have the right to buy their homes, and this may contribute to a solution of the problem.
That is the emphasis of the Select Committee. We can assume that quite a number of the 80 acres will be used for new housing.
The London borough of Newham is already conscious of the need to retain young people in the area, and has its own scheme for providing them with new private houses. Contrary to the general view on the Government Benches, my borough council, which is heavily of my political persuasion, provides young married people with private houses to buy, and it is pleased to do so—when it can get the money to do it.
The original Beckton plan shows that no less than 44 per cent. of the area of the Beckton redevelopment would be in mid-tenure, equity-sharing or housing association, or for owner-occupation: 27 per cent. mid-tenure and 17 per cent. for owner-occupation, making 44 per cent. altogether. That might be regarded as a mix that is not to the liking of the Government or of the LDDC, but if they are to attract owner-occupiers and speculative developers—perhaps of the volume and variety that the Minister said—they must also perhaps consider housing associations.
My second question arises immediately out of the Select Committee's recommendations and findings. Can the Minister direct the LDDC to say that nominations for the purchase of any new houses that are built, or nominations to houses that may be constructed by housing associations, will be given to nominees of the council either from existing council houses of those who were on the housing list? The Minister has often told us that council people should be allowed to buy homes. If he believes that, would it not be logical to give first preference to those in council accommodaion to buy private houses in the borough?

Mr Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the orders, which are concerned only with the transfer of the land from Newham or Southwark to the Docklands Development Corporation. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is speculating on what it might be used for, but he should not go further.

Mr Spearing: I of course bow to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but whether the order should be approved—which is the question before us—should depend to some extent on the information before the House about the purpose for which the LDDC wishes to use the land. We need an indication of that and of the safeguards available to the community. That has some bearing on whether the order meets with the approval of the House.
I pass on, at your prompting, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the valid point, which is well on the centre of the order, of the cost and valuation involved in the transfer. I understand that the London borough of Newham will

receive about £2·3 million for 80 acres, and that that is the statutory valuation. My primitive arithmetic makes that work out at roughly £30,000 an acre. If we think of a reasonable density of, say, 70 or 80 people per acre, e arrive at a cost of about £2,000 per dwelling. That is not the end of the basic land cost. There are also the costs of services. But, given the cost of housing today, I should think that a cost of £2,000 to £3,000 for the site is relatively low. But we have no guarantee that that is the charge to be made upon any owner-occupiers coming into the area. They will presumably not buy the land directly from the LDDC. The LDDC will, I suspect, through housing associations — in which case rent and not occupation will be the criteria — invite volume builders to tender. The Minister thinks that that may be so. The difference between the cost of the acquisition of the land and the cost of a house which is on the land will be part of the equation. I suspect that somewhere along the line the value of the land will markedly increase from the price at which it is purchased from the borough council.

Mr Graham: It is not only a question of the purposes for which the land is ostensibly to be used. Once the land is vested in the urban development corporation it can be sold, leased off or given to anyone else for any other purpose. In other words, once the land is vested in the urban development corporation, not only does it leave the ownership and control of the public authority as we know it but, in effect, it can be sold to anyone for any purpose.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for illustrating the constitutional implications of the order. Coupled with the ownership of the land, it is entirely within the LDDC's discretion to decide what planning permission that land is given. Having got the power of compulsory purchase and the power of providing planning permission, the LDDC has realised the medieval man's dream of the stone that turns land to gold. The LDDC, presumably, takes any profit, which the new owner-occupier, paying to a building society or mortgage fund out of hard-earned wages, has to finance. The vacuum has to be filled, and someone will make a great deal of money. Will the Minister therefore explain the cost to owner-occupiers of the land element, which is currently publicly owned?
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton referred to community facilities. These were extensively dealt with in the Hybrid Instruments Committee report on this order. It dealt with the petition sent in by the London borough of Newham. There are two areas of new town centres in the Beckton area—the North Beckton local centre and the West Beckton (North) local centre. The Committee says on page 3
The Hybrid Instruments Committee do not see this as a substantial ground of complaint., given that the only relevant statutory function of the Petitioners is to provide community facilities.
I like the legal phrasing of those last 13 words. We are all aware of the importance of community facilities to a local centre—a school, a centre for information, and so on. But in practice much more than the statutory minimum is needed. I instance particularly—and this is related to the other centre as well—the work of the dockland churches joint committee, which is keen to provide local community facilities, which are not statutory. But they must have the statutory land or the planning zones in a statutory sense. I am not sure that the LDDC will be as sensitive to the


provision of these community facilities as the existing local authority. The less land that is taken for community facilities, the more there is available for disposal, including land in the Beckton district park that is already open space and would do nicely for building.
The chairman of the LDDC has stated that the corporation does not expect to change substantially the existing Beckton district plan, but it is changed to some extent by these vesting orders. I hope that the Minister will be able to inform the House about his instructions or wishes in respect of community facilities. These must surely consist of more than the statutory provision of libraries, schools and, if I dare mention the subject, school playing fields. The Department of Education and Science has just passed through the House an order that restricts the statutory amount of school playing fields. Fewer school playing fields may be statutorily required in the borough of Newham.
I should like the Minister to deal with the matter of grants for community facilities. Delay has occurred in paying grants under the partnership agreement. There have been six weeks in which the new urban development corporation could have paid out money which was not possible before the House passed the establishment order. I understand that the delay affects payments to industrial enterprises and also to voluntary agencies with facilities related to sites south of the Barking road.
I turn now to the issue of planning permission for the sites. Plans have been made for the area that will have to be changed. Section 140 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 specifies that within a given time in the course of a year a code of practice must be agreed between the LDDC and the local borough councils covering relations between them. The section states:
An urban development corporation shall prepare a code of practice as to consultation with the relevant local authorities about the exercise of its powers.
I hope that the corporation will agree to consult the local authorities on planning permission for the zones. If that does not happen, it is not much of a code of practice. Such a code must involve mutual agreement on how one operates, similar to the procedure of the House. The Government appear to be saying that the code will be determined, in the end, by the LDDC even if the borough councils object. I hope that this will not happen. There should be consultation over planning permission for the sites.
There may be changes in the density of population which will affect demand for local authority services. Some of the land on the sites has been earmarked for purposes relating to the rest of the borough. If these plans cannot now go ahead, the borough will have to find sites elsewhere to fulfil these purposes. Such co-operation is essential if the borough is not to be prejudiced and having to spend more money. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want it to do that.
I return to my hon. Friend's question about membership. I see no reason why an official letter should not be sent to the boroughs inviting them to submit the names of persons who in their view have particular knowledge of the area and are thus eligible to be appointed by the Secretary of State to the board of the LDDC.
I must make it clear that, even if names were suggested by the boroughs, it would be wrong for the Secretary of

State to claim that those persons represented the boroughs. They would not. They would be appointed by the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, if there is to be an official invitation, I hope that it will be sent to the boroughs because the use of these sites may well rest in the contributions made by such people to the deliberations of the LDDC. Indeed, I suggest that it might be improper for the LDDC to go ahead and discuss the future use of land before any such appointments are made. The nature and suitability of such appointments will, of course, have considerable local impact, however they are made. I see no reason why an official letter should not go to the council. If any of these people were unfortunately no longer available, the Secretary of State would have to go back to the council. Even if this were done, however, they would not represent the local authority because they would be the Secretary of State's appointments. Nevertheless, such people would at least have some local knowledge of the area.
I turn to the attitude of local people to whatever is built on the land. They will say that whatever happens is being proposed and imposed upon them by the LDDC. They will look very carefully indeed to see whether the use of the land forwards the objectives mentioned in paragraph 8.4 of the House of Lords Select Committee report on the order. Whether the Minister likes it or not, the fact that their Lordships compressed the representations of local people, boroughs and individuals, into 500 words and did not say in their report to what extent their case was proved or not proved has not been well received in the area. If the LDDC is to gain the confidence of the local people, which everybody says is crucial to the undertaking, it has a good deal of work to do to redeem what was regarded by some people as something of a judicial leap in the dark with regard to the regeneration of Docklands.
Finally, I hope that when more of these orders are introduced there will be no need for detailed points of the kind that I have made in this debate. I would hope that the mere fact that the House must approve by affirmative resolution acquisition orders of this kind will mean that there is proper and adequate consultation all the way round. Therefore, although they may not be approved in principle, at least it will not be necessary late at night, or by other means such as Adjournment debates or questions, for the Member or Members concerned to make a nuisance of themselves in the House. I hope that that will not be necessary. A great deal will depend upon the good sense and common concerns of all.
These sites could be used in a way which will meet the mutual concerns of everybody. Indeed, any other site and any other order could do the same. I personally would wish to co-operate with the LDDC to try to identify those areas of common agreement. Having identified such areas, if they exist, and having seen how large they are, we could then discuss how common objectives could best be met so that, whatever happens in the future, proper regeneration of an uncontroversial nature takes place.
I should like to list the questions that I have put. First, what is the position regarding allotments? Will this be in the form of a letter, and, if so, what will it say? Secondly, in the light of the Government's views on home ownership and the report of the Select Committee, do they expect nomination from the borough for the purchase of houses, including housing associations nominations? Thirdly, what will be the structure of land charges, the betterment, if any, and the profit on the land arising from the relatively


low charge that appears to be made by the borough under the statutory obligation? Fourthly, what has caused the delay in the grants for projects by industry and voluntary agencies in the last few weeks? Fifthly, will there be a formal invitation to the boroughs concerned to suggest a name or names with local knowledge of the area?

Mr. Giles Shaw: Both the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked a number of detailed questions about how these orders affect important local issues. I fully appreciate the detailed way in which the hon. Member for Newham, South put his questions. In no way do I suggest that he has detained the House unnecessarily, because this is an important matter for his constituents. I shall seek to answer all the questions to the best of my ability.
I was asked about the membership of the LDDC. I give both hon. Members the assurance that my right hon. Friend will be consulting local authorities about the possible appointment of persons who have local knowledge to this board. I understand that at least one person from a local authority has indicated an interest. It is important to provide the confidence that members with local knowledge will bring to the board. I therefore give the assurance that consultation about board appointments will take place with the local authorities.
The hon. Member for Newham, South asked about grants. A problem has recently arisen over prospective overspending en urban programme projects by the local authorities. This is not directly a matter of concern to the LDDC. It is a matter for my Department and the local authorities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we hope to resolve it shortly.

Mr. Spearing: In an effort to save time, I did not go into this matter in great detail. Perhaps the Minister will explain his last remark. As I understand it, the dockland partnership set up under the Inner Urban Areas Act by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) will now be taken over by the LDDC, which will replace the council. I also understand that the money will be paid to the council by the LDDC and not direct from the Department of the Environment. The council will therefore apply to the LDDC for additional moneys and for the continuation of revenue grants that have already been made.
I understand that commitments already entered into are being cut back because no money, either last year or this year, has been paid from current account. It is that matter which requires explanation because the exercise was meant to provide easier channels for the granting of such moneys.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has not understood what I have said. I confirm that the LDDC will be a grant-providing authority, but I suspect that the matter he has raised concerns delays in grant payment. There is a delay at present in dealing with grants, primarily because of potential over-expenditure on inner urban area projects and not in relation to the LDDC. If, on reflection, the point that the hon. Member has raised requires further explanation, I shall write to him about it, but that is the best answer I can give now.
Two points were raised both by the hon. Member for Newham, South and Edmonton. The first concerns

compensation. I confirm that compensation will be paid on the basis of the 1961 land compensation code. Section 141 of the Local Government Act is relevant to that. It is too early to say what the amounts will be as the parties are still in discussion. I do not wish to prejudice those discussions, but there will be proper compensation available under that code. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured that that is the procedure that we shall follow.
The second point raised by both hon. Gentlemen concerned allotments and allotment policy. I confirm that the corporation has acquired a site from the Port of London Authority which will replace the existing triangle site on which statutory allotment holders are presently sited. it is hoped that that will be transferred in due course to the allotment holders. I believe that both hon. Gentlemen will understand that the position of statutory allotment authorities is involved and it is taking time to resolve, but there is no doubt in our minds that the LDDC will be able to offer an alternative site to those statutory allotment holders.
The question of housing policy was also raised by both hon. Members.

Mr. Graham: And the HIP allocations.

Mr. Shaw: Yes, indeed. Capital receipts will be available to count towards the HIP allocations.
The LDDC is not a housing authority as such, as the hon. Member for Edmonton will understand. Its main role will be to provide service sites for builders and developers. Under its general powers it will be able to build houses or flats, but the Government's intention is that the LDDC should, wherever possible, work through the private sector or housing associations rather than engage directly in the provision of housing. Therefore, the boroughs will remain responsible for exercising their traditional functions of housing authorities as well as undertaking any new initiatives for low-cost home ownership and matters of that sort.
Concerning the scale of the developments envisaged, house builders believe that there will be a market for up to 1,000 houses per year in the Beckton area alone and the development corporation will seek to maximise the opportunities for private sector houses throughout docklands by providing prepared sites for these purposes. I hope that that clarifies the LDDC's housing policy.
The hon. Member for Newham, South raised an esoteric point about the cost and transfer of land. It is subject to the overall plan for the docklands area. There will always have to be planning application and planning decision about what constitutes a suitable piece of planning and development. But I take the point that on disposal or acquisition of land under compulsory purchase there will be no capital gain or capital loss depending on what the ultimate disposal of that land should be. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the LDDC's main role is the restoration, development and marketing of prepared land. That will provide an important facility to enable the land to be brought into a wide use for both housing and other appropriate uses.
I confirm our intention about community centres. The LDDC will hope to be able to provide land for the Beckton centre and appropriate centres in other areas such as the boroughs would wish to see. The corporation would not want to ride roughshod over what the local community regarded as appropriate development.
I stress that the importance of the project is to provide development prospects that communities in those areas will share. The prospects for community development in the docklands reclamation scheme will be large and we hope that in time a co-operative spirit will emerge between the boroughs and the corporation and that the appointment of those with specialist local knowledge should enable the LDDC and the boroughs to work more harmoniously than the boroughs may envisage.
The hon. Member for Edmonton registered formally the Opposition's disagreement with the concept of the LDDC, of which the vesting orders are the first step. I understand that, and I welcome the fact that he will not press a vote against the orders.
The hon. Gentleman raised a particular point about Southwark, which has not featured in the debate, concerning the Greenland dock. We do not know exactly what the corporation's plan will be and discussions are under way. A study has been launched and it will determine what is to be done with that site. It may need some adaptation, and that will be undertaken in the light of circumstances. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when we are clear about what proposal will be forthcoming.

Mr. Graham: Is the hon. Gentleman giving me an assurance that when existing users are deprived of land the corporation will be sensitive to the need to consult users so that they are given a comparable and satisfactory alternative?

Mr. Shaw: That may be going further than I have suggested. I cannot prejudge how the LDDC will wish to develop certain parts of the land that it will acquire. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the corporation intends to engage in as much consultation as possible, not only with the boroughs where land is being acquired but to ensure that local community interests and so on are properly worked through. I hope that there will be a better atmosphere in which those consultations can be carried out. The hon. Member for Newham, South referred to the code, and I assure the House that consultation will be an important part of the LDDC's task.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman follow up those encouraging remarks by being more specific about the consultation on nominations for housing? The House of Lords Committee made clear its view that the JDC had failed because young people were moving away from the area. Will boroughs be allowed to make nominations for houses in order to stop what the House of Lords drew attention to? Unless there are such nominations, the objectives of the LDDC, as seen by another place, will not be achieved.

Mr. Shaw: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The LDDC chairman has already indicated his willingness

to consult local authorities and to consider with them nominations to new housing. That should meet the hon. Gentleman's point.
I hope that I have clarified at least some of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South.
I hope, likewise, that in relation to the compensation provisions and housing policy, the two main matters raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton, I have shown that the development corporation will take a sensitive attitude and that compensation will be payable under the appropriate legislation.
I hope that, in the light of those considerations, the House will see fit to approve these vesting orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Newham London Borough Council) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

Resolved,
That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Southwark London Borough Council) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

That the draft International Development Association (Sixth Replenishment) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

CINEMATOGRAPHS AND CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS

That the Films (Quotas) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73B (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

INTERREGIONAL AIR SERVICES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11895/80, being a draft Council Regulation concerning the authorisation of scheduled interregional air services for passengers, mail and cargo between Member States, and of the Department of Trade's Explanatory Memorandum of 15th January 1981; and supports Her Majesty's Government's intention to negotiate arrangements which will lead to a more liberal régime in the interests of British travellers and airlines.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Housing (Walsall)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adourn—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. David Winnick: I am raising this subject at this late hour because of a deep concern that is felt locally, and certainly by me, about Walsall's housing problems. I raise the matter because there is developing a housing crisis in the borough. No new contracts for council house building have been entered into by the local authority for the last two years. This is against the background of well over 9,000 on the council waiting list, which includes transfers.
I recently received a parliamentary written reply which stated that only one local authority housing start had taken place in the borough during 1980–81. There will be no housing starts at all during the current financial year. In its housing investment application for 1981–82, the council stated that it needed to provide 1,000 new dwellings annually to supply the accommodation needed and to keep up with demand. The figure now would be something in the region of 1,500. The Minister will know that for two successive years the council's housing investment programme application has been cut severely. That is why the council cannot carry out its proper functions as a housing authority.
In the housing investment programme that the council submitted in 1980–81 the figure was £22 million. The allocation received was £13 million. In the following year, 1981–82, the submission made by the local authority in its housing investment programme was for £20 million. That was reduced to £7½ million, a cut of two-thirds.
I must stress that it is not house building alone that is affected by the Government's cutbacks in housing expenditure. There are in my borough 5,700 older council properties. These are properties mainly built in the 1920s and 1930s. There is no disagreement that they are the properties that should be modernised, and quite a number of them have been, as is the case elsewhere. The council would like to be able to improve these properties to bring them up to present-day standards and provide amenities for the tenants. The council would like to complete the modernisation of these older properties by 1984–85. However, because of the way in which the housing investment programme in the past two years has been cut, it has been possible to start modernising in the current financial year only 118 of these properties.
It is understandable that the tenants of these older council properties, some of them my constituents, pay the rent increases with reluctance. The latest rent increase in the borough—as it is nationally—is the one recommended and virtually imposed by the Government of more than £3 a week. When the tenants come to see me about the state of their properties, they say "We are paying this rent increase of more than £3 a week, but when will our houses be modernised, and how much longer will it be before the properties in which we live can have the standards of present-day council accommodation?" That is a very good question, but it is not a matter that the council can resolve. It does not have the funds to do so.
The number of empty properties in the borough is lower than the average elsewhere, and every effort is made by the council to reduce it. As there are elsewhere, there are the difficult-to-let and more unattractive types of dwelling.
But, in case the Minister intends to dwell on the subject, I should point out that some of the empty properties are being used for decanting or for homeless emergencies. Perhaps the point should also be made that some of the properties are empty because of the lack of money to improve them for letting purposes. Some repair and maintenance housing work is also being held up because of the cut back in the last two years in the housing investment programme. There is other work such as rewiring and reroofing which the council is not able to carry out.
It is also not possible for the council in present circumstances to provide many improvement grants to home owners. Again, that is a reflection of the housing problem to which I am referring. The Walsall council would also like to be able to spend some money on improving the attractiveness of a number of older council estates.
With a waiting list of more than 9,000, it is understandable that the housing department is under mounting pressure from a number of the people waiting to be housed. Between 65 and 70 per cent. of the letters that I receive from constituents and of the complaints of the people who see me at my surgeries concern housing matters. Some want transfers. They live with children in high-rise accommodation and perhaps have done so for a good number of years. They want transfers to houses with gardens or to ground floor flat accommodation. There are young married couples in the borough who are not in a position to buy their own homes. They cannot get mortgages; they have not the means. They rely on the local authority to provide them with accommodation. Such young couples, sometimes with children, are living with their in-laws or parents, or living in digs. They want to be able to resolve their housing problem, and the only way will be if they can be offered accommodation by the local authority.
I am really asking that the council should be allowed to carry out its proper housing responsibilities. At the moment, it is not in a position to do so, because it cannot build. There are no new contracts being entered into. It cannot modernise more than a handful of properties. Some maintenance and repair work cannot be carried out. It is a borough where it has been recognised for some time that there is a serious housing problem. It was designated as a housing stress area. I hope that I shall not be told that the council can use funds from other services to supplement the housing investment programme, because that simply is not possible. There is no money from other services that could be used for the purpose.
The council, like other local authorities, is now submitting its housing investment programme for 1982–83. It does so in the belief—I hope without t justification—that instead of providing the allocation that is needed, there will be yet another cutback for the next financial year. We have already had two severe cutbacks. I hope that there will not be another cutback in 1982–83.
About 15 or 16 months ago, I invited one of the Minister's colleagues in the Department to see the housing and environmental problems that we face in our borough. It was in March 1981. The Minister came, and we took him on a coach trip around the borough. He said that he recognised the formidable housing and environmental problems that were facing Walsall council. It is all very


well to say that one recognises the problems, but will the council be given the means to deal with those problems and carry out its housing functions and responsibilities?
I do not raise this matter simply to ventilate a constituency problem. I should not have done so had I not been convinced, first, that there is a serious housing problem in the borough in that the council cannot carry out its housing functions properly and, secondly, that the responsibility lies with the Government, in that proper allocation is being withheld from the local authority.
I hope that the local authority's submission for 1982–83 will be treated in a different manner from its two previous applications. The Government's policy is to encourage the selling of council houses. I have said before, and perhaps I shall be forgiven for saying again, that I only wish that the Government would show as much concern about seeing that local authorities build and provide accommodation as about selling off council houses. Tenants in high-rise blocks of flats, particularly mothers living perhaps on the ninth or twelfth floor, will have to wait longer for a transfer when houses are sold off. However, that is the present Government's policy, and it has been approved by Parliament. So be it.
However, I hope that the Government and the Ministers concerned will understand the housing problems in my borough and, instead of denying the council the opportunity to get on with its job, provide it with the funds and the means to do so. That is why I have raised the matter today.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has drawn attention to the housing problems currently facing Walsall. He would be the first to say that Walsall is not the only authority facing such problems. He rightly said that it is a matter of the overall policy of the Government, against which his borough is having to view its domestic problems.
The Government's position starts on the question of public expenditure. Our guidelines for future expenditure in the housing area have been published and they reflect the Government's judgment of what the nation can afford to devote to housing, having regard to the totality of the national resources available and our assessment of housing needs. The Government have said firmly, and I repeat, that we are totally committed to improving the standard of public services, and that includes housing. But that can be achieved only with a strong economy, and over the years public spending has been planned on assumptions about economic growth that have not been achieved. It has been at a level that the economy of this country cannot support.
If we are to improve the standards of housing, as the hon. Gentleman wishes, and any other service, our first task must be to increase the country's resources through higher output. We have made some progress towards that. It is abundantly clear that the public money available for capital spending will remain very tight. In his speech to the Institute of Housing at Brighton on 26 June, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction explained in depth the crucial significance that capital receipts have assumed in enhancing allocations. I consider that advice to be important.
So fundamental is the availability or otherwise of capital receipts to an authority's housing programme that it is essential that that should be reflected in the regular proceedings of housing committees, which should receive at regular intervals reports from the council's finance director on the authority's overall capital receipts position. That is the key financial information that every housing committee should have at its fingertips. It is essential that every council pursues a positive and active policy to generate the maximum possible capital receipts—chiefly from the sale of land and council houses.
In the case of the first of those, I understand that a start has already been made by Walsall and that in 1980–81 1·08 hectares of land were disposed of for private development. Furthermore, I am told that the publication of its land register should not now be long delayed. That information, recording all vacant land in the authority's ownership, should greatly assist the council in its assessment of the worth of its land holdings for potential capital receipt purposes.
One of the major sources of capital receipts is, of course, from the sale of council houses. I am aware that the council had been selling houses before the advent of the Housing Act 1980. I do not wish to dwell tonight upon the council's response to the right-to-buy provisions of that Act, which has been the subject of much correspondence with my Department. Suffice it to say that the council's lack of progress has been a source of grave concern to my hon. Friend the Minister and has undoubtedly deprived it of a source of funding which, from the hon. Member's remarks, appears to be desperately needed.
I have already referred to the changes now taking place in housing policy priorities. Authorities right across the country have found that the maintenance and modernisation of their existing stock has been assuming as great a priority as new-building. The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of modernising the older pre-war stock. In many cases that is probably more important than new building.
Substantial funds have been channelled into much-needed renovation of older dwellings, thereby competing for funds formerly available for other activities. The national trend is mirrored in Walsall where, during the past few years, more than 1,000 dwellings per annum have been improved and where expenditure in that area has more than doubled.
It follows that funds available for new house building within the public sector are diminishing, but that does not mean that those awaiting homes must necessarily be disappointed. On the contrary, many authorities have found among their existing tenants and those on their waiting lists an increasing desire to become owneroccupiers—people who are both willing and able to buy new or old dwellings, rather than rent, if the opportunity to buy at a sufficiently low cost is made available to them.
I understand that Walsall already has experience of building for sale and the response to its recent improvement for sale venture provided results that were both surprising and gratifying. I understand that for the three dwellings improved with the funds made available for that purpose during the latter part of 1980–81, they were over-subscribed 10 times. Those dwellings were sold at a cost of about £13,000 each—well within the grasp of many first-time buyers. It is to be hoped that, heartened by that exercise, the council will give further consideration to that worthwhile initiative. There are other low-cost


home ownership initiatives which the Department has recommended to authorities for their consideration such as equity-sharing and homesteading schemes and the use of mortage guarantee powers. A skilful authority can satisfy the desire of some of its inhabitants for a home of their own while conserving limited resources to cater for those special needs that are unlikely to be met by the private sector.
I turn to two specific matters that were raised by the hon. Gentleman. The first is housing allocations. The regional allocation for 1980–81 was £217 million, of which Walsall's share was £12.9 million, representing 6 per cent. of the money available for the region. The first call against that allocation was the £1.487 million overspend from 1979–80, which was brought about by the high level of committed expenditure. Over £10 million worth was carried forward from earlier programmes of new construction. Thus, despite the constraints on expenditure for the second half of the year imposed by the moratorium announced in October 1980, which was the basis of the hon. Gentleman's comments, Walsall still managed to achieve an overspend of over £1½ million. This is inevitably reflected in the allocation for 1981–82.
The regional allocation for 1981–82 was £164 million, which represented a 24 per cent. reduction on the previous year's allocation. Walsall's share, which was notified to it in December 1980, was about £9 million. That represents 6 per cent. and it was the fourth largest allocation in the region. It was foreshadowed when allocations were notified by the announcement that adjustments would have to be made later this year to take account of the estimated outturn for 1980–81. The first of these adjustments took place in March, when Walsall had estimated its overspend for 1980–81 at £1·217 million. To reflect that overspend, the 1981–82 allocation was accordingly reduced by this amount to a net permitted spend of £7·876 million. The second adjustment to take account of the council's most recent estimate of outturn for 1980–81 has recently been notified to the council. As was perhaps expected, the latest estimated outturn for 1980–81 showed a further overspend of £419,000 over and above the £1·217 million originally forecast. There has, therefore, been a further reduction in the 1981–82 allocation of £7·457 million.
Unfortunately, this is the penalty that councils must pay for failing to contain their expenditure within the limits prescribed, or when it is known that there will be overspend, for failing to plan for the contingency by seeking to enhance the allocation by a more enterprising fiscal policy Cy exercising skill in generating capital receipts.

Mr. Winnick: I understand that the Minister has a prepared brief. However, I hope that in the time that is available to us tie will be able to deal with the fact that no new housing contract has been entered into for house building by the local authority for the past two years. The Minister approves of modernisation, but this year the borough could undertake the modernisation of only 118 properties. As for capital receipts, the Department has stated that it would take the sale of about 13 dwellings to gain sufficient funds to build one dwelling.

Mr. Shaw: I appreciate the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am not saying that there is a one-to-one relationship. I am suggesting that many

councils have found it both desirable and necessary to embark upon the sale of land or council housing to be able to sustain their priority programmes. They have the right to choose, and there is now legislation that allows for the right to buy.
The moratorium had a major impact on the level of public sector starts throughout the country. The financial constraints proved to be well justified in respect of Walsall. Despite the moratorium, Walsall still managed to achieve an overspend of £1½ million. The pattern of starts in Walsall in recent years demonstrates that a critical period had been reached in cash flow. During the five years from 1975–76 to 1980–81 Walsall was involved in schemes to build 3,228 new dwellings. During the same period it reported 3,547 completions.
With such a high level of activity, a reduction in 1980–81 was inevitable with the national trend. That was the result of the previous Administrations's housing policy of making new building for local authorities so expensive that year by year authorities of both political complexions had to reduce their programmes. The hon. Gentleman is right that in consequence only one start was reported in 1980–81, although in the same period completions numbered 562 dwellings. The average new-build starts and completions during the period since 1975–76 has been 538 and 685 respectively. At the same time, the council nearly doubled its expenditure on the improvement of its existing stock. Therefore, with the pressure from existing new-build commitments and the need to pursue a vigorous improvement policy, the opportunity of entering into more new starts in 1980–81 was not available. That view is reinforced by the outturn figure for 1980–81.
On the facts so far presented, the picture is not entirely gloomy. Opportunities exist for the future. It is for the council to take advantage of numerous initiatives that the Government have made available, thus enabling it to meet the changes which lie ahead. I cannot leave the subject of new housing without stressing the extra responsibility which rests with the local authority in specialist-type dwellings. Housing needs and problems are now increasingly specific and local. Therefore, the emphasis of public sector policy must be to meet the specific needs of the elderly and the handicapped.
The hon. Member raised the question of council house rents. My hon. Friend has already explained in an answer on 20 March this year to the hon. Gentleman that the setting of council house rent levels is the responsibility of each local authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not, and cannot, lay down what increase must be made in each area. Naturally, however, authorities reach their decisions in the light of his annual determination about housing subsidy and of his assumptions about future rent increases generally. Thus, for 1981–82 my right hon. Friend looked to an average rent increase of £3·25. I note, as no doubt the hon. Member does, that Walsall chose to raise its rents by that amount near the beginning of April.
The hon. Gentleman again questioned this evening the basis for these assumptions when it comes to rent increases. He has done so not only in a parliamentary question but in the discussions of the Select Committee on the Environment, of which he was a member,, and where he had the opportunity to question the Secretary of State direct on this matter.
I would respond to him with the two points which emerged from the answer given to him by my hon. Friend


the Minister for Housing and Construction on 3 July. First, it is mistaken to look at our expectations for this year in isolation, whether in money or percentage terms. They cannot sensibly be divorced from the pattern over previous years. Those years saw, under the last Labour Government, a marked decline in rents compared with earnings.
Secondly, rent increases charged are not necessarily the same as increases which tenants themselves have to meet. Over 45 per cent. of tenants receive assistance with their rent. Those on rent rebates generally have 60 per cent. of any increase met. Tenants on supplementary benefit generally have the whole of any increase met. No doubt Walsall was aware of these facts when it set its increase in April, just as my right hon. Friend was when making public his expectations about rent increases generally this

year. Therefore, I understand that the rent problem featured significantly in what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is not entirely a matter of having to take it in the way in which he put it.
Despite the necessity for tight control of local authority expenditure on housing, there is still much that can be done by each individual authority to enable it to continue to meet the needs of all those who live within its boundaries. The authorities can generate capital receipts to increase the amount of money available to them, and they can explore the various methods now open to them to provide homes, other than for renting, for those who would welcome them, leaving them free as housing authorities to concentrate on those in their areas with special needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Four o'clock am.